2013
University of Groningen Melissa Verhagen S2141841 MSc BA Marketing Management Groningen, February 25, 20131
M
ANAGEMENT
S
UMMARY
The objective of this thesis was to investigate whether the self congruity theory was generalizable across the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of product brands and how the presence of a celebrity endorser influences the level of self congruity among the hedonic and utilitarian product brands. Also the effect on brand attitude is investigated.
2
I
NTRODUCTION
The way people think about and behave towards retail brands varies enormously. Attitudes and preferences for brands are different per individual. Also, from daily life I noticed people can sometimes identify themselves with certain brands and the users of that particular brand. A wellknown example of this phenomenon is the Lonsdale brand, which was originally positioned as a high quality boksing brand worn by boksing legends like Mike Tyson and Muhammed Ali. In Holland the brand was being appropriated by racists and right wing extemists, which lead to the fact that Dutch people associated the Lonsdale brand with that stereotype user. This association has lead to the fact that Dutch stores refused to sell the Lonsdale brand. The Lonsdale story fascinated me and motivated me to dig in to the phenomenon of stereotype association. I found literature on the self congruity theory which described the match between the stereotype user of a brand and an individual. As I read about this I started to wonder if the theory would be generalizable amongst product types (hedonic vs. utilitarian) and if this could be influenced by projecting a stereotype user in advertising (e.g. through celebrity endorsement). Also, I was wondering how the self congruity levels affected the level of brand attitude. Therefore, in this study I try to adress the generalizability of the self congruity theory and the effect on brand attitude.
Personality
3
These five domains are also referred to as "The Big Five". The Big Five factors are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openess to experience. According to Aaker (1997) a brands personality can be related to the "Big Five" dimensions for identifying human personality. She explores the meaning of these dimensions in the sense of brand personality and finds that indeed the dimensions for human personality relate to dimensions of brand personality. Aaker’s study suggests that the dimensions and the importance of the dimensions of personality must be examined in order to understand their centrality to the self and the extent to which they influence preference for brands across situations.
Brand sensitivity
Preference for brands thus differs per individual. Some people are highly susceptible to brands while others couldn’t care less. This phenomenom, also referred to as brand sensitivity, ofcourse differs among brands. Kapferer and Laurent (1988) viewed brand sensitivity as a psychological phenomenom which differs per individual. They found that average brand sensitivity was meaningless, because indeed the within-market variation was so great. Brand sensitivity in this case was operationalized as “the likelihood of buying a wellknown brand instead of an unknown brand”. Schaefer
et al (2011) on the other hand, found that differences in brand sensitivity can be assigned to differences in personality, they tested brain activity in relation to rewards, with favored and well-known brands as rewards on the basis of the Big Five personality dimensions.
Brand attitude
4
defines attitudes as “representing an affect towards the object”. Brand attitude is the feeling that a consumer has towards a brand, which suggests that brand attitude is dependent on personality and congruence with a persons perception of its personality.
Self congruity
The above is also true for the typical users of a brand. If a person identifies a typical user of a brand as being equal to how he sees himself, he will most likely evaluate the brand more positively. This match between the self and a typical user of brand is called self congruity (Dolich 1969; Sirgy 1982; Sirgy et al., 1991). Self congruity is defined as the extent to which a consumer's self concept matches the personality of a typical user of a brand --a man who likes sailing, will report high levels of self congruity with a brand like Gaastra, because the typical user is a sailor-- . Consumers thus indeed seek brands that fit their own image (Sirgy, 1982; Sirgy et al., 1997; Helgeson and Supphellen, 2004). In research performed on this subject, self congruity has already been used to explain and predict brand attitude, brand preference, consumer behavior, and so forth (Sirgy et al., 1997). The research on this subject is performed on different kinds of brands of products and stores, but is there a difference between types of brands and the extent to which the congruity theory holds?
Shopping motivations
5
different shopping and usage needs, in which we also find a hedonic and utilitarian dimension. Dolich (1969) was one of the first to investigate the relationship between self-image and product brands. He found that individuals tend to relate the brand symbol to self-concepts, and that the most favored brands were consistent with the self-concept and thus reinforced the self-concept. In his research, Dolich used several different brands, like beer, cigarettes and soap, but there was no distinction based on shopping motivation nor on product type.
Product type
As the distinction of product type remains undefined in self congruity research, the focus of this thesis is to study the effects of this distinction. This is also the reason why in this thesis I distinguish product type on the hedonic and utilitarian level, as this is a well known and often used way to distinguish products and brands. Hedonic brands can be discribed as brands which people by primarily for the sensation, for example a perfume that makes you feel desirable, and utilitarian brands are brands which people buy mainly for their function, for example detergent (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). As hedonic and utilitarian products are significantly different from eachother, I expect different levels of self congruity on the different product types. I assume that the levels of self congruity will be higher for brands of hedonic product type, because of sensation and image provoked by the product.
But could it be that utilitarian brands can provoke high levels of self congruity leading to a more positive attitude towards the utilitarian brand and eventually evoke purchase intention? In first instance you could say that detergent doesn't really get people excited, foremost because the image of a typical user of a certain brand of detergent is not visual so self congruity is not likely to have high levels.
Celebrity endorsement
6
only one link) in common”. This indicates that when a respondent is primed with a visual, thoughts about that visual, and subconsciously maybe attitudes towards that visual, are activated. Because of this, it is plausible that levels of self congruity for a utilitarian brand could increase when a consumer is being helped in visualising the typical user. A way to help people get higher levels of self congruity for a utilitarian brand, could be achieved by making it as easy as possible to imagine a typical user of that product. This is often done by using a celebrity to endorse the product in an advertisement. Celebrities are often well-liked, possibly leading to identification and consumer persuasion in an attempt to seek some type of relationship with the celebrity (Belch and Belch, 2007). Also in the article by Till and Busler (2000) about the match up hypothesis, is mentioned that both Petroshius and Crocker's (1989) and Patzer's (1983) studies found that physically attractive models used in advertising led to more favorable attitudes toward the ad and stronger purchase intentions. This could be because people want to identify themselves with attractive stereotypes, mainly because this is an ideal-image which can be related to the “ideal-self”of an individual. The beforementioned is confirmed in earlier research on this topic by Sirgy. A match between a product image and a person’s ideal self-image is referred to as ideal congruity (Sirgy, 1985). Sirgy also states that these personality images are not determined by the physical characteristics of a product alone, but are also formed by a host of other factors like advertising or stereotype of the generalized users.
7
this thesis I try to address the following main question which will ultimately lead to implications for practitioners and for further research:
"Is the self congruity theory generalizable across the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of product
brands and how does the presence of a celebrity endorser influence the level of self congruity among the hedonic and utilitarian product brands, do these manipulations have an effect on brand attitude?"
Academic relevance
As I dug into the self congruity literature I found no specific research that distinguished on the basis of product type. Self congruity theory has been researched on different kinds of brands of products and stores but there was no distinction made between the hedonic product dimension and the utilitarian product dimension. This distinction thus is quite new to the self congruity literature. Also the effect of a stereotype user, depicted in the form of a celebrity endorser in advertisments, on the level of self congruity in the different product dimensions is quite new and so findings of this study can contribute to academic literature.
Managerial relevance
As stated in the beginning of this introduction, a negative stereotype association can damage a brand severely. As I investigate the difference in the level of self congruity amongst different product dimensions and the effect of a depicted stereotype in the form of a celebrity endorser in advertisements, the findings can be very usefull for managers. It might help to check whether their brand is sensitive for this particular phenomenon and maybe provide suggestions on how to prevent or overcome a negative situation.
8
9
L
ITERATURE REVIEW
Self congruity as determined by product type.
As self congruity is a comparison between product-image and self-image belief, the brand itself seems to be an important aspect in the congruency theory. Brand personality is defined as "the set of human characteristics associated with a brand". Aaker (1997) developed a framework to measure the five brand personality dimensions. It might seem that the concepts brand personality and self congruity resemble eachother, but from literature I know that they are signifficantly different concepts (Helgeson and Supphellen, 2004). As mentioned, brands differ on the basis of product type. Consumers purchase goods and services and perform consumption behaviors for two basic reasons: 1) Consummatory affective (hedonic) gratification (from sensory attributes), and 2) instrumental, utilitarian reasons (Batra and Ahtola, 1991; Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). The buying process of utilitarian products are driven mainly by rational buying motives. The buying processes of hedonic products, in contrast, also include emotional motives. According to Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) a person is more likely to derive its' self image from a hedonic product, and therefore it is plausible that the self congruity theory could only be applicable for hedonic brands. But could it be that utilitarian brands can provoke high levels of self congruity leading to a more positive attitude towards the utilitarian brand and eventually evoke purchase intention? In first instance you could say that detergent doesn't really get people excited, foremost because the image of a typical user of a certain brand of detergent is not visual so self congruity is not likely to have high levels. Therefore I argue that as a main effect we will find that high levels of self congruity only exist for hedonic brands.
H1: High levels of self congruity exist for hedonic brands and not for utilitarian brands.
Self congruity, product type and celebrity endorsement.
10
recognition on behalf of a consumer good by appearing with it in an advertisement" (McCracken, 1989). Celebrity endorsement is used to build a congruent image between the brand and the consumer. Information from a credible source (e.g. celebrity) can influence beliefs, opinions, attitudes and/or behaviour through a process called intemalisation, which occurs when receivers accept a source influence in terms of their personal attitude and value structures (Erdogan, 1999). It is plausible that celebrity endorsement improves the level of self congruity for utilitarian brands, as the image of a typical user becomes more apparant to the consumer. This is in support with the assumption that celebrity endorsement could provoke higher levels of self congruity. Therefore I argue that the main effect of product type on self congruity will be different when a celebrity endorser is used.
H2: The use of a celebrity endorser diminishes the effect of product type on self congruity. That is, the effect of product type on self congruity is larger in the celebrity condition and is smaller or non-existing in the celebrity condition.
Relationship between self congruity and brand attitude.
Individuals tend to relate the brand symbol to self-concepts, and the most favored brands were consistent with the self-concept and thus reinforced the self-concept (Dolich, 1969). Dolich (1969) distinguishes between the real self (actual self) and the ideal-self and between consumption in public/private atmosphere to see if his findings were generalizable between public and private use. Greaff (1996) conducted an experiment to examine the moderating effects of self-monitoring and public/private consumption on the relationship between image congruence and product evaluations. Greaff found that the greater the self-congruence, the more favorable the brand evaluation. He also found that actual and ideal congruence are positively related to consumers' brand evaluations whereas the correlation for ideal congruence is consistently larger than for actual congruence. This is in support with the hypothesis that self congruity has a positive effect on brand attitude.
11
The relation between brand sensitivity and self congruity
In determining factors that are related to brand sensitivity, Kapferer and Laurent (1983; Laurent and Kapferer, 1986) found that involvement is one of the most directly related factors. There are three dimensions of involvement that are particularly related to brand sensitivity. The first dimension is related to a persons interest in a certain product category, the second dimension is related to perceived purchasing risk and the last dimension is related to the projection of a certain self-image. Because the last dimension is of interest in this study, this will be the only dimension that is elaborated on. Kapferer and Laurent (1983) found that the more a person is concerned with their self-image, the more they will pay attention to brands. Specifically brands that convey their image. This dimension can be related to self congruity. Presumably, the more a person is concerned with their self-image, the more risk they wil feel in buying a brand that conveys a certain type of user image.
Beaudoin and Lachance (2006) researched brand sensitivity among adolecents in the context of clothing. Their objective was to understand adolescents interest in clothing brand names and to determine how different psychological, social, and socioeconomic variables explained variance in their brand sensitivity (Beaudoin and Lachance, 2006). They found that peer influence was a significant factor in explaining brand sensitivity among adolecents. This can be related to self congruity, as that is the extent to which a person identifies him of herself to the typical user of a brand. Because of the findings reported by Kapferer and Laurent, and Beaudoin and Lachance, I hypothesise that respondents with higher levels of brand sensitivity will als report higher levels of self congruity.
H4: Higher levels of brand sensitivity lead to higher levels of self congruity.
Big Five personality traits
12
(1943) ultimately developed a set of 35 clusters of related terms. With these 35 clusters at hand, researchers analyzed the variables and found only five factors remained (Digman and Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Fiske, 1949; Norman, 1963; Tupes and Christal, 1961). The Big-Five factors have traditionally been labeled: I Extraversion, II Agreeableness, III Conscientiousness, IV Emotional Stability, V Openness to experience (Peabody and Goldberg, 1989; Mc Crae and Costa, 1987). These factors, or dimensions, are derived from analysis of the natural language terms people use to describe themselves and others (John and Srivastava, The Big Five Trait taxonomy chapter 4). The Big Five framework suggests that most individual differences in human personality can be classified into five broad, empirically derived domains (Gosling et al, 2003). It does not imply that personality differences can be reduced to only five traits. Rather, these five dimensions represent personality at the broadest level of abstraction, and each dimension summarizes a large number of distinct, more specific personality characteristics (John and Srivastava, The Big Five Trait taxonomy chapter 4). In order to better understand what the dimensions encompass, short definitions of the five dimensions are supplied by Costa and Mc Crae (1992).
Extraversion vs. introversion
13
H5: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is smaller for people with high scores on the extraversion personality trait than for individuals with lower scores on this personality trait.
Introversion includes traits that are the opposite of introverts. Individuals with low scores on the extraversion personality trait (i.e. introverts) tend to be more reserved and less outspoken in groups. They enjoy spending time alone and may have a few close friends. Introverts prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate. They are also more analytical before speaking (Laney, 2002). Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement. Introversion was also defined by some in terms of a preference for a quiet, more minimally stimulating environment. Schaefer
et al. (2011) found that introverts are more brand sensitive than extraverts. They allocate this finding to the fact that introverts prefer to avoid social situations and tend to be reserved, and thus favorite brands may be particularly rewarding. This was also posed by Eysenck (1967), he stated that consuming a non-popular good may induce social discussions, which introverts try to avoid.
Agreeableness
Agreeableness includes traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust and modesty. People who score high on agreeableness are most concerned with interpersonal relationships and are better able to control anger and negative affect in situations involving frustration (Graziano et al., 1996). Agreeable individuals strive for intimacy, union and solidarity with others, Graziano et al. (1996) argue that agreeableness differences are the result of social desirability biases, in persons responding to self-report inventories, to persons who rate others, or both. This implies that agreeable people could be more susceptible to what others think, and because of this, maybe the need to identify themselves with others is stronger. Therefore I hypothesize that the levels of self congruity in this group will be higher in the case of celebrity endorsement manipulation.
14
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness is associated with order, efficiency, and self-discipline. Therefore, it would be reasonable for observers to expect the office of a conscientious person to be organized, efficiently arranged, clean, and uncluttered (Gosling et al., 2002). Conscientiousness describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules and planning, organizing and prioritizing tasks (John and Srivastava, The Big Five Trait taxonomy chapter 4). As task- and goal directed behavior suits a utilitarian shopping motivation (shopping is just a task) I hypothesize that the use of a celebrity endorsement will not influence the levels of self congruity for the individuals high on the conscientiousness personality trait.
H7: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is smaller for individuals with high scores on the conscientiousness personality trait than for individuals with lower scores on this personality trait.
Emotional stability vs. neuroticism
Emotional stability refers to individuals who are emotionally stable and less reactive to stress. They tend to be calm, even-tempered, and less likely to feel tense or rattled. Although they are low in negative emotion, they are not necessarily high on positive emotion.
15
explain why individuals with high scores on neuroticism, seem to be more brand sensitive. Schaefer et al. (2011) find support for this statement as they found that for participants loading high on neuroticism a favorite brand seems to be very rewarding, because it is the well-known favorite brand that makes it very likely that the subject will not be disappointed.
As the effect of neuroticism on brand sensitivity is not in the line of this study, it is only used to complete the picture of the Big Five personality dimensions and will not be used for any further research in this study.
Openness to experiences
Individuals who are high in openness to experience tend to be curious, imaginative, and unconventional and to have wide interests. The interpretation of openness to experience as idea-related endeavor suggests similarities to the contrast between individual learning and imitation (Costa and McCrae, 1992) This suggests that individuals high on openness to experience may be more motivated to engage in intellectual pursuits that increase their knowledge
(Furnham, et al., 2008). With the above in mind, presumably the effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity will be higher for people with high scores on the openness to experience personality trait. As these individuals are more keen to learn, they might learn through celebrity endorsement who the typical user of a given brand is, and maybe identify themselves with this typical user.
16
O
VERVIEW CURRENT STUDY
In summary this study hypothesizes that the self congruity levels depend on the type of product brand and celebrity endorsement. I hypothesize that the effect of the interaction with celebrity endorsement and product type will be different among the various reported personality traits. Also I hypothesize that higher levels of brand sensitivity lead to higher levels of self congruity. Higher levels of self congruity lead to a more positive brand attitude.
Fig. 1.1 Conceptual framework part 1.
M
ETHOD
Design and participants
For this study a 2 (product type: hedonic versus utilitarian) by 2 (celebrity endorsement: yes versus no) between-subjects factorial design was used to investigate the influence of product type and celebrity endorsement on the levels of self congruity. I also used different ads for men and women to be able to control for the difference. This distinction is only made in the images, not in brands. Also the questionnaire for both men and women are the same. The brands used in the different producttype conditions are Dolce & Gabbana The One (perfume) for the hedonic dimension and Gillette (razorblades) for the utilitarian dimension. The brands are determined and varified as belonging to the dimensions by using a pretest. The results of this specific pretest are to be found in appendix 1.3. For the celebrity endorsement condition, only international celebrities are used to maintain a clean condition. Also, only celebrities with multiple talents such as sports, acting, singing and/or modelling are used to keep the quality perception of the celebrity equal. A schematic overview of the four research conditions is depicted in fig. 1.3.
1. Hedonic | Celebrity endorsed
Dolce & Gabbana The One Matthew McConoughy
2. Hedonic | Not endorsed
Dolce & Gabbana The One
3. Utilitarian | Celebrity endorsed
Gillette David Beckham
4. Utilitarian | Not endorsed
Gillette
1. Hedonic | Celebrity endorsed
Dolce & Gabbana The One Scarlett Johansson
2. Hedonic | Not endorsed
Dolce & Gabbana The One
3. Utilitarian | Celebrity endorsed
Gillette Venus Jeniffer Lopez
4. Utilitarian | Not endorsed
Gillette Venus
1
The celebrity endorser in the hedonic brand Dolce & Gabbana The One for men is Matthew McConoughy, in the female condition the celebrity endorser of Dolce & Gabbana The One for women is Scarlett Johansson. In the utilitarian brand Gillette the celebrity endorser is David Beckham and In the female condition the celebrity endorser of Gillette Venus is Jeniffer Lopez.
A total of 110 respondents (63 males and 47 females; mean age of 30, SD = 11) participated voluntarily in this online study. They were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.
Independent measures
Product type and Celebrity endorsement
The level of self congruity is manipulated by product type and celebrity endorsement. These influencing factors will be manipulated by the use of 4 conditions as depicted in fig 1.2. The participants will be randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.
Personality
2
Brand sensitivity
In order to measure the brand sensitivity of the respondents, the validated three-point brand sensitivity scale of Kapferer and Laurant (1992) is used. This scale measures brand sensitivity on a 7 point likert scale using the following three questions: ”If I buy something, I always pay attention to the brand”,
”In general, a brand tells me something about the quality of the product”, and “The brand name is very important to me”.
Dependent measures
Self congruity
To measure the level of self congruity I used a scale which is found to be the best predictor of consumer behavior according to Sirgy (1997). This scale lets individuals think about the stereotype user of a specific brand, and then rate the perceived match between that stereotype user and their own actual and ideal self providing a level of self congruity. This measure instructs participants to:
Take a moment to think about [brand x]. Think about the kind of person who typically uses [brand x]. Imagine this person in your mind and then describe this person using one or more personal adjectives such as, stylish, classy, masculine, sexy, old, athletic or whatever personal adjective you can use to describe the typical user of [brand x]. Once participants have done this, they are asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement to statements like; "This brand is consistent with how I see myself", "I am
quite similar to the typical consumer of this brand" and "The image of the typical customer of this brand is congruent with how I see myself" using a scale of 1 to 9 where 1 = strongly disagree and 9 =
strongly agree. See also appendix 1.1.
3
Brand attitude
In order to measure brand attitude, I used the scale of Helgeson & Supphellen (2004) in which the participants are asked to indicate their general impression of a brand on statements like; "I like brand
X", " this is a good brand" and "brand x is of high quality" on a likert scale of 1 to 9 where 1 =
4
P
ROCEDURE
The participants for this study were invited for an online Qualtrics questionnaire and were told that they would participate in a study about brand evaluations and decision-making. Recruitment of respondents was done through convenience sampling. The Qualtrics link to the questionnaire was posted online on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Participation was completely voluntarily and the respondents were assured that their identity will remain anonymous. To encourage participation, the participants were informed that they could win Spotify Premium Free for half a year.
5
P
LAN OF ANALYSIS
To test the hypotheses in this research I will perform statistical tests using SPSS. First, the dataset will be described using descriptive statistics. Because the scales I used were all multi-item scales, the reliability has to be tested using Cronbach’s Alpha. If the Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.6 the items measure the same concept and a sumvariable can be created so statistical tests can be performed more efficiently and the outcomes can be analyzed more easily. 8 hypotheses are formulated in order to address the main issue in this thesis, which is:
"Is the self congruity theory generalizable across the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of product
brands and how does the presence of a celebrity endorser influence the level of self congruity among the hedonic and utilitarian product brands, do these manipulations have an effect on brand attitude?"
The hypotheses formulated to address the main issue are:
H1: High levels of self congruity exist for hedonic brands and not for utilitarian brands.
H2: The use of a celebrity endorser diminishes the effect of product type on self-congruity. That is, the effect of product type on self-congruity is larger in the celebrity condition and is smaller or non-existing in the celebrity condition.
H3: Higher levels of self-congruity lead to a more positive brand attitude. H4: Higher levels of brand sensitivity lead to higher levels of self congruity.
H5: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is smaller for individuals with high scores on the extraversion personality trait.
H6: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is larger for individuals with high scores on the agreeableness personality trait.
H7: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is smaller for individuals with high scores on the conscientiousness personality trait.
6
To test the first two hypotheses will be tested using a two-way ANOVA. This way the interaction effect can be taken into account. Also a regerssion will be performed to check for the direction of the effects found in the ANOVA test. All other hypotheses will be tested using linear regression.
7
D
ESCRIPTION OF THE DATASET
A total of 110 respondents (63 males and 47 females; mean age of 30, SD = 11) participated voluntarily in this online study. In this dataset 51 of the respondents are students, the other 59 are graduated. Because all questions in the questionnaire were mandatory there were no missings in the final dataset that I imported from Qualtrics.
The respondents’ commitment to the research was tested using a typical question based on the Oppenheimer validation questions. Almost 64% (72) of the respondents had read the question carefully and responded according to the instructions described in the question, see fig 1.3.
Oppenheimer validation question (good answer: Pet)
Frequency Percent
Pet 72 63.7
Sports 38 33.6
Fig. 1.4. Results oppenheimer validation question.
Reliability analysis and sumvariables
The scales that were used to measure personality, brand sensitivity, brand attitude and self congruity were multi-item scales. First I tested, using Cronbach’s Alpha, if the items of each scale could form one sumvariable in order to process the results more efficiently. If the Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.6 the items measure the same concept and a sumvariable can be created.
Personality
8
translated the items into Dutch. It can also be due to the fact that the measure I used is too brief and maybe more questions are needed to measure one item. However, this method of measuring personality has been tested in several studies (Gosling, 2002; Gosling et al, 2003) so I can assume the two items to measure the same concept and thus I created a sum variable for extraversion.
The dimension agreeableness is measured using the items 2 & 7 where item is 2 a reversed-scored item. To check if the items measure the same concept I first recoded item 2 so a reliability test could be executed. The reliability test showed an α of -.668 which officially means that one item is reversed coded and needs to be recoded. In this case the reversed coded item had already been decoded. This error could be caused by the fact that the items were measured in Dutch, which might be interpreted differently by the respondents. To test if this is the case; the original reversed coded item is used to test the reliability. This reliability test shows an α of .400 which officially means that the items do not measure the same concept. However, this method of measuring personality has been tested in several studies (Gosling, 2002; Gosling et al, 2003) so I can assume the two items to measure the same concept and thus I created a sum variable for agreeableness.
The dimension conscientiousness is measured using the items 3 & 8 where item 8 is a reversed-scored item. To check if the items measure the same concept I first recoded item 8 so a reliability test could be executed. The reliability test showed an α of .163 which officially means that the items do not measure the same concept. However, this method of measuring personality has been tested in several studies (Gosling, 2002; Gosling et al, 2003) so I can assume the two items to measure the same concept and thus I created a sum variable for conscientiousness.
The dimension emotional stability is measured using the items 4 & 9 where item 4 is a reversed-scored item. To check if the items measure the same concept I first recoded item 4 so a reliability test could be executed. The reliability test showed an α of .243 which officially means that the items do not measure the same concept. However, this method of measuring personality has been tested in several studies (Gosling, 2002; Gosling et al, 2003) so I can assume the two items to measure the same concept and thus I created a sum variable for emotional stability.
9
reliability test could be executed. The reliability test showed an α of .304 which officially means that the items do not measure the same concept. However, this method of measuring personality has been tested in several studies (Gosling, 2002; Gosling et al, 2003) so I can assume the two items to measure the same concept and thus I created a sum variable for openess to experience.
Summary of reliability analysis personality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Openness to experience α = .426 α = -.668/.400R α = .163 α = .243 α = .304
Fig. 1.5. Summary reliability analysis personality.
Brand sensitivity
In this case the scale used to measure brand sensitivity consisted of 3 items. To check if the 3 items measure the same concept I tested the reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha. The reliability test showed an α of .866 which means that the items measure the same concept and a sumvariable can be formed.
Brand attitude
The scale used to measure brand attitude consisted of 7 items. To check if the 7 items measure the same concept I tested the reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha. The reliability test showed an α of .947 which means that the items measure the same concept and a sumvariable can be formed.
Self congruity
10
R
ESULTS
Hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2:
Self congruity, product type and celebrity endorsementA Two-way anova test is used to test H1 and H2. The outcome of the ANOVA is shown in Table 1, all other outcome tables can be found in appendix 1.3. To analyze the influence of product type on self congruity (H1), I performed a two-way anova. In this test the main effect of product type proved to be significant. The levels of self congruity are significantly higher in the hedonic product type dimension (M=4.34), than in the utilitarian dimension (M=3.41), F (1.106) = 5.419, p=.022.
H1: High levels of self congruity exist for hedonic brands and not for utilitarian brands.
Confirmed.
To analyze if the main effect of product type on self congruity is influenced by celebrity endorsement, I performed a two-way anova. This test confirmed the predicted main effect of product type on self congruity. The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity was not significant F (1.106) = .452,
p=.503. The test also showed no support for an interaction effect of celebrity endorsement on product
type and self congruity F(1.106) =.159, p= .691.
H2: The use of a celebrity endorser diminishes the effect of product type on self congruity. That is, the effect of product type on self congruity is larger in the celebrity condition and is smaller or non-existing in the celebrity condition.
11
Degrees of Freedom
Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 3 8,945 2,061 ,110 Intercept 1 1641,297 378,238 ,000 CE 1 1,961 ,452 ,503 Producttype 1 23,516 5,419 ,022 CE * Producttype 1 ,690 ,159 ,691 Error 106 4,339 Total 110 Corrected Total 109
Table 1. Output ANOVA, product type, celebrity endorsement and self congruity.
Hypothesis 3:
Self congruity and brand attitudeTo analyze whether or not the level of self congruity influences the level of brand attitude, I performed a regression analysis with self congruity regressed on brand attitude. In order to check the influence of product type and celebrity endorsement, I also used product type and celebrity endorsement and the interaction (product type * celebrity endorsement) as independent variables. The outcome of the regression is show in Table 2, all other outcome tables can be found in appendix 1.3. For this analysis I used the dummy-coded (-1/1) version of the variables product type and celebrity endorsement. Also, I used the centered version of the variables self congruity and brand attitude, where the mean value of both variables is 0. The analysis showed a significant effect of product type on brand attitude, R²= .107, F(3.106) = 4.240, p=.001. Higher levels of brand attitude exist in the hedonic dimension (B=.572). No significant effect of celebrity endorsement on brand attitude was found, nor for a significant interaction of product type and celebrity endorsement.
12
H3: Higher levels of self congruity lead to a more positive brand attitude.
Confirmed. B t Sig. (Constant) 3,824 13,290 ,000 Celebrity endorsement -,152 -1,123 ,264 Product type ,347 2,517 ,013 Celebrity endorsement * product type ,116 ,862 ,391 Selfcongruity ,484 7,379 ,000
Table 2. Output regression, self congruity, brand attitude, product type and celebrity endorsement
Hypothesis 4: Brand sensitivity and self congruity
To analyze whether or not the level of brand sensitivity influences the level of self congruity, I performed a regression analysis with brand sensitivity regressed on self congruity. The regression analysis was significant R²= .108, F(1.108) = 13.103, p=.000. The regression analysis showed that the level of brand sensitivity positively influences the level of self congruity (B=.234). In other words, higher levels of brand sensitivity lead to higher levels of self congruity.
H4: Higher levels of brand sensitivity lead to higher levels of self congruity.
13
Hypothesis 5:
Self congruity, celebrity endorsement and extraversionTo analyze whether or not the personality trait extraversion influences the level of self congruity in the condition celebrity endorsed and not celebrity endorsed, I performed a regression analysis with extraversion regressed on self congruity with the interaction effect of celebrity endorsement. The outcome of the regression is shown in Table 3, all other outcome tables can be found in appendix 1.3. For this analysis, I used the centered version of the variable extraversion. The regression analysis was not significant, R²= .052, F(3.106) = 1.929, p=.103, so the level of extravertness does not influence the effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity.
H5: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is smaller for people with high scores on the extraversion personality trait.
Rejected. B t Sig. (Constant) 3,909 19,617 ,000 Celebrity endorsement ,177 ,886 ,378 Extraversion ,280 1,646 ,103 Celebrity endorsement *extraversion ,248 1,458 ,148
14
Hypothesis 6:
Self congruity, celebrity endorsement and agreeablenessA regression analysis is used to analyze whether or not the personality trait agreeableness influences the level of self congruity in the condition celebrity endorsed and not celebrity endorsed. I regressed agreeableness on self congruity with the interaction effect of celebrity endorsement. The outcome of the regression is shown in Table 4, all other outcome tables can be found in appendix 1.3. For this analysis, I used the centered version of the variable agreeableness. The regression analysis was not significant, R²= .008, F(3.106) = .297, p=.783, so the level of agreeableness does not influence the effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity.
H6: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is larger for individuals with high scores on the agreeableness personality trait.
Rejected. B t Sig. (Constant) 3,911 18,966 ,000 Celebrity endorsement ,172 ,836 ,405 Agreeableness ,072 ,276 ,783 Celebrity endorsement * agereableness ,113 ,434 ,665
15
Hypothesis 7:
Self congruity, celebrity endorsement and conscientiousnessTo analyze whether or not the personality trait conscientiousness influences the level of self congruity in the condition celebrity endorsed and not celebrity endorsed, I performed a regression analysis with conscientiousness regressed on self congruity with the interaction effect of celebrity endorsement. The outcome of the regression is shown below in Table 5, all other outcome tables can be found in appendix 1.3. For this analysis, I used the centered version of the variable concientiousness. The regression analysis was not significant, R²= .011, F(3.106) = .394, p=.779, so the level of conscientiousness does not influence the effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity.
H7: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is smaller for individuals with high scores on the conscientiousness personality trait.
Rejected. B t Sig. (Constant) 3,905 19,167 ,000 Celebrity endorsement ,167 ,819 ,415 Conscientiousness ,051 ,281 ,779 Celebrity endorsement * conscientiousness ,113 ,626 ,533
16
Hypothesis 8:
Self congruity, celebrity endorsement and openness to experienceA regression analysis is used to analyze whether or not the personality trait openess to experience influences the level of self congruity in the condition celebrity endorsed and not celebrity endorsed, I regressed openess to experience on self congruity with the interaction effect of celebrity endorsement. The outcome of the regression is shown below in Table 6, all other outcome tables can be found in appendix 1.3. For this analysis, I used the centered version of the variable openess to experience. The regression analysis was not significant, R²= .024, F(3.106) = .866, p=.316, so the level of openess to experience does not influence the effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity.
H8: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is larger for individuals with high scores on the openness to experience personality trait.
Rejected. B t Sig. (Constant) 3,895 ,000 Celebrity endorsement ,165 ,818 ,415 Openess to experience -,187 -1,007 ,316 Celebrity endorsement * Openess to experience ,173 ,928 ,355
Summary of the results
In this study I found support for the following hypotheses:
H1: High levels of self congruity exist for hedonic brands and not for utilitarian brands. H3: Higher levels of self-congruity lead to a more positive brand attitude.
H4: Higher levels of brand sensitivity lead to higher levels of self congruity.
No support was found for the following hypothesis:
H2: The use of a celebrity endorser diminishes the effect of product type on self-congruity. That is, the effect of product type on self-congruity is larger in the celebrity condition and is smaller or non-existing in the celebrity condition.
H5: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is smaller for individuals with high scores on the extraversion personality trait.
H6: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is larger for individuals with high scores on the agreeableness personality trait.
H7: The effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity is smaller for individuals with high scores on the conscientiousness personality trait.
1
D
ISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to analyze if the self congruity levels differ when manipulating for product type and celebrity endorsement and how this influences brand attitude. I have investigated whether the effect of celebrity endorsement and producttype is different among the various reported personality traits, and if higher levels of brand sensitivity lead to higher levels of self congruity and if higher levels of self congruity lead to a more positive brand attitude are tested in this study.
The experiment shows that higher levels of self congruity exist for hedonic brand condition compared to utilitarian brand condition. This is in line with the hypothesis that “high levels of self congruity exist for hedonic brands and not for utilitarian brands”. Respondents are more likely to imagine a stereotype user in the hedonic condition and appear to identify themselves with this stereotype significantly more than in the utilitarian condition. This finding is in line with earlier findings on the subject which showed that the buying process of hedonic brands include rational as well as emotional motives, and that a person is more likely to derive its’self-image from a hedonic product (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982).
2
direct effect of the manipulation was also taken into account, the experiment showed that the respondents in the hedonic condition reported a more positive brand attitude. This was expected, as the hedonic condition is more focussed on pleasure than function. The regression showed no direct effect of celebrity endorsement on brand attitude. This could be because the respondents did not particularly have a positive attitude towards the celebrity endorser. Perceived physical attractiveness and perceived credibility of the celebrity endorser are antecedents in forming a brand attitude, which could have influenced the effect of celebrity endorsement on brand attitude (Kahle and Homer, 1985; Belch and Belch, 2007). Also, in this case, the effect of self congruity on brand attitude was not influenced by the interaction of product type and celebrity endorsement.
The hypothesis that higher levels of brand sensitivity lead to higher levels of self congruity was confirmed in this experiment. Respondents who reported higher levels of brand sensitivity, i.e. find brands important in their choice for a product, also reported higher levels of self congruity. This is in line with the findings of Kapferer and Laurent (1983). They found that the more a person is concerned with their self-image, the more they will pay attention to brands.
3
C
ONCLUSION
The objective of this thesis was to investigate whether the self congruity theory was generalizable across the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of product brands and how the presence of a celebrity endorser influences the level of self congruity among the hedonic and utilitarian product brands. Also the effect on brand attitude is investigated. By reviewing available literature on these subjects I also found that brand sensitivity is an important concept in influencing self congruity. The hypotheses I tested using a two by two factorial design were based on the reviewed literature and assumptions I found plausible based on earlier findings on the subjects. The results were obtained by using a questionnaire among Dutch respondents. When elaborating on the results I found very little support for the hypotheses. I found higher levels of self congruity in the hedonic product type dimension. This effect was not influenced by celebrity endorsement. Also a more positive brand attitude was reported in the hedonic product type dimension. A more positive brand attitude was also reported among respondents with higher levels of self congruity. People who can identify themselves with the stereotype user of a brand, thus report a more positive brand attitude. Further more, respondents who reported higher levels of brand sensitivity reported higher levels of self congruity. This finding supports the importance of brand sensitivity in self congruity research. In this study there was no evidence of personality traits influencing the effect of celebrity endorsement on self congruity.
Implications for practitioners
4
F
UTURE RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
In this experiment there are some limitations that may have biased the results. In investigating the hypothesis I used two dimensions of product type, predetermined using a pre-test. This report is only about one study, for more reliable results I would suggest to repeat the study using more brands for the different product type dimensions. Because of time restrictions in this study, I chose to use only the two brands Gillette and Dolce & Gabbana. Using unknown brands as well might influence the results also, as people are not influenced by earlier marketing activities from a brand.
Because I only used two brands for this experiment, the same is true for the celebrity endorsers. More variety in celebrity endorsers might influence the results concerning brand attitude, brand sensitivity and self congruity. Also celebrity endorsers which are not associated with a certain brand might have a different effect on the results. This bias can possibly be overcome by using a pretest on different celebrities to test how people see the celebrities and to test if people can come up with the celebrity, that endorses the brand, by themselves.
The concept of self congruity is measured using the scale developed by Sirgy (1997). This scale was proven to be the best predictor of behavior. The intent was to measure purchase intention as well as willingness to pay, but due to programming errors this was not done. As I have not measured purchase intention, the predictive value of the scale could not be confirmed in this study. For future studies I suggest to take purchase intention and willingness to pay into account to check the predictive value of the self congruity scale.
For the concept of brand sensitivity I suggest to use a more clean cut measure. In this study, I used a scale of Kapferer and Laurant (1992) which consists of only three questions and is a very broad measure of the concept. If a more product specific measure of brand sensitivity is used, it might influence the results in future studies on this subject.
5
R
EFERENCES
Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, p. 347-356.
Aaker, J.L., Brumbaugh, A.M., & Grier, S.A. (2000) Nontarget Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes. Journal of consumer psychology, 9, p. 127-140.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Atkin, C. and Block, M. (1983) Effectiveness of Celebrity Endorsers, Journal of Advertising
Research, 23, March, p. 57-61.
Bass, F.M., & Talarzyk, W.W. (1972) An Attitude Model for the Study of Brand Preference, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, p. 93-96.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991) Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes.
Marketing Letters, 2, p. 159–170.
Beaudoin, P. and Lachance, M.J. (2006) Determinants of Adolescents’ Brand Sensitivity to Clothing.
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 34, p. 312-331
Belch, G.E., & Belch, M.A. (2007) Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing
Communications Perspective, New York, NY: The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.
Bettman, J.R. (1979) Memory factors in consumer choice: A review. Journal of Marketing, 43, p. 37-53.
6
Bloch, P.H., & Bruce, G.D. (1984) Product Involvement as Leisure Behavior, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 11.
Cattell, R. B. (1943) The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, p. 476-506.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992) NEO personality Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL.
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000) Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal
of Marketing Research, 37, p. 60–71.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981) Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, p. 149-170.
Dimofte, C.V., & Yalch, R.F. (2010) The mere association effect and brand evaluations, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 21, p. 24–37.
Dolich, I.J. (1969) Congruence relationships between Self-images and Product Brands. Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 80-84.
Erdogan, B.Z.. (1999) Celebrity Endorsement: A Literature Review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, p. 291-314.
Eysenck, H.J. (1967) Intellegence assessment: A theoretical and experimental approach. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, p. 81–98.
Fischer, E., & Arnold, S.J. (1990) More than a Labor of Love: Gender Roles and Christmas Shopping,
Journal of Consumer Research, 17, p. 333-345.
7
Fitzsimons, G. J. (2000) Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 249– 266.
Furnham, A., Swami, V., Arteche, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008) Cognitive ability, learning approaches and personality correlates of general knowledge. Educational Psychology, 28, p. 427-437.
Gosling, S.D., Ko, S.J. (2002) A Room With a Cue: Personality Judgments Based on Offices and Bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, p. 379-398.
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann, W.B. jr. (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-Five
personality domains, Journal of Research in Personality Vol. 37, p. 504–528.
Graziano, W.G., Jensen-Campbell, L.A., & Hair, E.C. (1996) Perceiving Interpersonal Conflict and Reacting to It: The Case for Agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, p. 820-835.
Greaff, T.R. (1996) Image Congruence effects on product evaluations: The Role of Self-Monitoring and Public/Private Consumption. Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 13, p. 481-499.
Helgeson, J.G. & Supphellen, M. (2004) A conceptual and measurement comparison of self congruity and brand personality, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, p. 205-34.
Hirschman, E.C. (1984) Experience Seeking: A Subjectivist Perspective of Consumption, Journal of
Business Research, 12, p. 115-136.
Hirschman, E.C., & Holbrook, M.B. (1982) Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, No. 3, p. 92-101.
8
Kahle, L.R., & Homer, P.M. (1985), Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, p. 954-961.
Kapferer, G., & Laurent, J.N. (1983) La Sensibilité aux Marques: Un Nouveau Concept pour Gérer les Marques. Fondation Jour de France pour la Recherche en Publicité. Paris
Kapferer, G. & Laurent, J.N. (1988) Consumer brand sensitivity: A key to measuring and managing brand equity. Defining, measuring and managing brand equity: Conference Summary, Lance leuthesser ed., Marketing science institute report number 88-104, p. 20-22.
Kapferer J-N, Laurent G. (1992) La sensibilité à la marque. Paris: Ed. d'Organisation.
Koponen, A. (1960) Personality Characteristics of Purchasers, Journal of Advertising Research, 1 , p. 6-12.
Laney, M.O. 2002. The introvert advantage: How to thrive in an extrovert world. New York: Workman
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.N. (1985) Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing
Research, 22, p. 41– 53.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.N. (1986) Les Profils d'Implication Rech Appl Mark, 1, p. 41–58.
McCracken, G. (1989) Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundation of the Endorsement Process, Journal of Consumer Research, p.310-32 1.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1997) Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, p. 509-516.
9
Norman, W T. (1963) Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, p. 574-583.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2002) How introverts versus extroverts approach small-group argumentative discussions? The Elementary School Journal, 102, p. 183–197.
Patzer, G.L. (1983) An Experiment Investigating the Influence of Communicator Physical Attractiveness on Attitudes, in Proceedings of AMA Educators' Conference, Patrick E.Murphy et al., eds., p. 25-29.
Park, B.(1986), A Methodfor Studyingthe Development of Impressionsof Real People, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, p. 907-17.
Peabody, D, & Goldberg, L. R. (1989) Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, p. 552-567.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Schuman, D. (1983) Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement, Journal of Consumer Research, 10, December, p.135-146.
Rosenberg, Morris (1979) Conceiving the Self, New York: Basic Books
Schaefer, M., Knuth, M., & Rumpel, F. (2011) Striatal response to favorite brands as a function of neuroticism and extraversion, Brain Research, 1425, p. 83-89.
Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994) Distinguishing Optimism From Neuroticism (and Trait Anxiety, Self-Mastery, and Self-Esteem): A Reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test.
Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog, 67, p. 1063-1078.
Sherry, J.F., McGrath, M.A., & Levy, S.J. (1993) The Dark Side of the Gift, Journal of Business
10
Sherry, J.F. (1990) A Socio-cultural Analysis of a Midwestern Flea Market, Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 17, p. 13-30.
Sirgy, M.J. (1982) Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 9, p. 287-98.
Sirgy, M.J. (1985) Using Self congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Motivation, Journal
of Business Research 12, p. 195-206.
Sirgy, M.J., Johar, J.S., Samli, A.C., & Claiborne, C.B. (1991) Self congruity versus functional congruity: Predictors of consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, p. 363-375.
Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T., Park, J., Chon, K., Claiborne, C.B., Johar, J.S. & Berkman, H. (1997), Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of self-image congruence, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, p. 229-41.
Sloot, L.M., Verhoef, P.C. & Franses, P.H. (2005) The impact of brand equity and the hedonic level of products on consumer stock-out reactions, Journal of Retailing, p. 15-34.
Till, B.D., & Busler, M. (2000) The Match-up Hypothesis: Physical Attractiveness, Expertise, and the Role of Fit on Brand Attitude, Purchase Intent and Brand Beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29, p. 1-13.
Tucker, W. T. & Painter, J.J (1961) Personality and Product Use, Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, p. 325-9.
Tupes, E. C, & Christal, R. E. (1961) Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Technical Report No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: US. Air Force.
11
A
PPENDIX
1.1
M
EASURES
The scales used to measure the variables in the conceptual model are described in this appendix.
Measuring personality
12
Measuring Self Congruity as proposed by Sirgy et al. (1997)
To measure self congruity the "new" method as proposed by Sirgy et al (1997) is used, as it appears to have the best predictive validity. This method captures self-image congruence directly and globally.
In this new method, self congruity is measured as follows; the participants are instructed to:
Take a moment to think about [brand x]. Think about the kind of person who typically uses [brand x]. Imagine this person in your mind and then describe this person using one or more personal adjectives such as, stylish, classy, masculine, sexy, old, athletic or whatever personal adjective you can use to describe the typical user of [brand x]. Once you've done this, indicate your agreement or disagreement to the following statements using this scale: strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 9.
1. This brand is consistent with how I (would like to) see myself.
2. I am quite similar (I would like to be perceived as similar) to the typical consumer of this brand
3. The image of the typical customer of this brand is congruent with how I see myself. (The image of the typical user is congruent with how I would like to see myself.)
The ideal self congruity items are shown in parenthesis.
Measuring Brand attitude, Helgeson & Supphellen (2004)
Indicate your general impression of [brand X] below. Use the following scale: strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 9.
I like [brand x]
This is a good [brand x] [brand x] is high quality.
13
A
PPENDIX
1.2
Q
UESTIONNAIRE
The same questionnaire is used for all four conditions. Only the picture of the product that is shown is different in each condition. The four pictures used are shown below.
Men Women
Hedonic with celebrity endorser
Hedonic without celebrity endorser
Utilitarian with celebrity endorser
14
Introduction Beste respondent,
Hartelijk dank voor het deelnemen aan dit onderzoek. Uw bijdrage is van groot belang voor mijn afstuderen. Het invullen van deze vragenlijst zal u hooguit 5 minuten van uw tijd kosten. U zult als respondent natuurlijk anoniem blijven en de resultaten zullen alleen gebruikt worden voor wetenschappelijke doeleinden. Het is erg belangrijk dat u deze vragenlijst zorgvuldig en volledig invult, in eerste instantie natuurlijk voor mijn onderzoek, maar ook omdat er onder de volledig ingevulde vragenlijsten een half jaar Spotify Premium verloot zal worden!
Ik wens u veel succes met het invullen,
Met vriendelijke groet,
Melissa Verhagen.
-> next page.
15
2. Er worden zometeen een aantal persoonlijkheidskenmerken genoemd, die misschien wel, of misschien helemaal niet op u van toepassing zijn. Geef alstublieft aan op een schaal van 1 tot 7 in hoeverre de genoemde persoonlijkheids kenmerken op u van toepassing zijn.
Ik zie mijzelf als:
-‐ Extravert & enthousiast
-‐ Kritisch
-‐ Veel zelfdiscipline & betrouwbaar
-‐ Angstig & overstuur
-‐ Open voor nieuwe dingen & complex
-‐ Gereserveerd & stil
-‐ Sympathiek & warm
-‐ Onbezorgd & ongeorganiseerd
-‐ Kalm & stabiel
-‐ Conventioneel & niet creatief
-> next page
3. Brand sensitivity
Geef aan in hoeverre de volgende statements op u van toepassing zijn, waar 1= helemaal niet waar en 7= helemaal waar.
1. Als ik iets koop let ik altijd op het merk.
2. Over het algemeen verteld een merk mij iets over de kwaliteit van een product. 3. Merknaam is erg belangrijk voor mij.
16
4. Beoefenen van sport
De meeste moderne theorieën over besluitvorming erkennen het feit dat beslissingen niet in een vacuüm plaatsvinden. Individuele voorkeuren en kennis, samen met situationele variabelen, kunnen sterk invloed hebben op het maken van beslissingen. Om ons onderzoek over beslissingen nemen te vergemakkelijken, zijn wij geïnteresseerd in het kennen van bepaalde factoren over jou: de beslisser. In het bijzonder zijn wij geïnteresseerd of jij daadwerkelijk de tijd neemt om de instructies te lezen. Is dit niet het geval dan zijn een aantal van onze manipulaties, die afhankelijk zijn van wijzigingen in de instructies, niet effectief. Om aan te tonen dat jij de instructies hebt gelezen, geef je in onderstaand tekstbox antwoord op de vraag wat jouw favoriete huisdier is. Dus negeer onderstaande vraag over welke soorten sport jij regelmatig beoefent. Heel hartelijk bedankt.
Welke soorten sport beoefen jij regelmatig? Vul in: ________________________________________
-> next page
5. Brand attitude
Geef uw algemene indruk over het volgende merk aan. 1= helemaal niet mee eens, 9= helemaal mee eens.
1. Ik vind [merk] leuk 2. [merk] is een goed merk 3. [merk] is van goede kwaliteit 4. Ik heb een goede indruk van [merk].
-> next page
