Self-Congruity Versus Functional Congruity:
Predictors of Consumer Behavior
M. Joseph Sirgy
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
J. S. Johar
California State University
A. C. Samli
University of North Florida
C. B. Claiborne
James Madison University
Four studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that
(1) consumer behavior is more strongly predicted by func-
tional congruity than by self-congruity, and (2)functional
congruity is influenced by self-congruity. The pattern of the
results provides support for hypotheses.
INTRODUCTION
Two common approaches used in explaining and predict-
ing brand attitude in consumer research are multiattribute
attitude models and self-image congruence models. There
are many variations of multiattribute attitude models. Most
of them are essentially variations of the expectancy-value
model. These include the perceived-instrumentality model
(Rosenberg 1956), the belief-evaluation model (Fishbein
and Ajzen 1975), the belief-importance model (Bass and
Talarzyk 1972; Sheth 1973; Sheth and Talarzyk 1972), the
determinant-attribute model (Meyer 1981), the Fishbein-
Extended model (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Ajzen and Fish-
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Volume 19, Number 4, pages 363-375.
Copyright 9 1991 by Academy of Marketing Science.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN 0092-0703.
JAMS
bein 1980), among others (see Wilkie and Pessemier 1973;
Lutz and Bettman 1977; and Wildt, Bruno, and Ginter 1981
for comprehensive literature reviews). Common to all mul-
tiattribute attitude models is the fact that they usually in-
clude only utilitarian or performance-related attributes (and
not symbolic or value-expressive attributes) in modeling
brand attitude. Although theoretically speaking, multiat-
tribute attitude models are designed to include both utilitar-
ian as well as value-expressive attributes in modelling and
predicting brand attitude, the traditional use of these models
have precluded the use of value-expressive attributes. Mod-
elling brand attitudes with value-expressive attributes has
been mostly the focus of self-image congruence models.
Self-image congruence models are based on the notion of
the cognitive matching between value-expressive attributes
of a given product (brand or store) and consumer self-
concept. The models are designed to predict consumer be-
havior variables, such as product (brand or store) attitude,
intention, behavior, and loyalty (see Sirgy 1982 and 1985a
and Claiborne and Sirgy 1990, for comprehensive reviews
of the consumer research literature in self-concept). The
commonly used self-image congruence models include the
actual self-congruity model (e.g., Birdwell 1968; Dolich
1969; Eriksen and Sirgy 1989; Grubb and Stern 1971; Mal-
hotra 1981, 1988; Ross 1971; Sirgy 1985b), the ideal self-
congruity model (e.g., Eriksen and Sirgy 1989; Lamone
1966; Dolich 1969; Delozier and Tillman 1972; Malhotra
1981, 1988; Ross 1971; Sirgy 1985b), the social self-
congruity model (e.g., Maheshwari 1974; Malhotra 1981,
363 FALL, 1991
SELF-CONGRUITY VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CONGRUITY:
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
1988; Sirgy and Samli 1985; Sirgy 1985b), the ideal social
self-congruity model (e.g., Sirgy 1985b; Sirgy and Samli
1985), and the affective self-(social) congruity models (Sir-
gy 1986, 1990). 1
The use of value-expressive evaluative criteria in attitude
models (i.e., self-image congruence models such as actual-,
ideal-, social-, and ideal social-self-congruity) will be re-
ferred to as self-congruity. In contrast, reference to the use
of utilitarian evaluative criteria in multiattribute attitude
models (e.g., belief-evaluation model, belief-importance
model, ideal-point model) will be made throughout this
paper as functional congruity. 2
From a marketing management point-of-view, the mar-
keting researcher uses the concepts of functional congruity
and self-congruity (through the use of multiattribute attitude
models and self-image congruence models) for brand posi-
tioning. Hence, it would be quite useful for marketing re-
searchers to know under what circumstances self-congruity
and functional congruity models should be used in brand
positioning research. To use self-congruity and functional
congruity in consumer research, we need to understand the
interrelationship between self-congruity and functional con-
gruity in explaining and predicting consumer behavior.
The relationship between self-congruity and functional
congruity has been previously examined (Samli and Sirgy
1981; Sirgy and Samli 1985). Samli and Sirgy (1981) con-
ducted a study to test the differential determinants of store
loyalty. Specifically, store loyalty was regressed on self-
congruity (social- and ideal social-congruities), functional
congruity (functional evaluation store-image or multiat-
tribute attitude), socioeconomic status, area loyalty, and
shopping-complex loyalty. The results showed that although
self-congruity failed to significantly predict store loyalty,
the self-congruity variables (social congruity and ideal so-
cial congruity) were significantly correlated with functional
congruity (functional store-image evaluation or multiat-
tribute attitude). In a follow-up study, Sirgy and Samli
(1985) demonstrated through causal path analysis that store
loyalty may be primarily influenced by functional congruity
(functional store-image evaluation or multiattribute atti-
tude), and that functional congruity is influenced by self-
congruity (social and ideal social congruity). That is, the
study demonstrated a "biasing effect" of self-congruity on
functional congruity. The "biasing effect" suggests that, al-
though functional congruity is more closely related to be-
havior than self-congruity, functional congruity is highly
influenced by self-congruity.
The Sirgy and Samli study raises two key questions that
this paper addresses. First, are these relationships robust?
That is, are these relationships generalizable to other con-
sumer behavior variables such as brand attitude and pur-
chase intention. Are these relationships generalizable across
different consumer populations? Are these relationships
generalizable using different methods and measures of self-
congruity and functional congruity? Our position is that
these relationships are indeed robust across products and
stores, consumer populations, and measures and methods.
Second, the Sirgy and Samli study did not provide an
adequate theoretical explanation regarding the interrelation-
ship among self-congruity, functional congruity, and con-
sumer behavior. This paper attempts to provide theory ex-
JAMS
SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
AND CLAIBORNE
plaining these interrelationships. More specifically, we
hypothesize that consumer behavior is more influenced by
functional congruity than self-congruity, and that self-
congruity influences functional congruity. This may be due
to the notion that self-congruity involves abstract cognitive
schemes which become activated and processed at a less-
conscious level, which is followed by a decompositional
process in which specific functional attributes of the prod-
uct/store are generated and consequently evaluated. The
evaluation of these functional attributes is biased by self-
congruity. The overall evaluation of the functional attributes
(functional congruity) may, in turn, influence consumer be-
havior.
The model and its predictive hypotheses are described in
the next section, followed by descriptions of four studies.
Finally, results of the studies and their implications are dis-
cussed.
THE HYPOTHESIZED MODEL
The hypothesized model (as shown in Figure 1) posits
that the consumer experiences a match or congruity between
a particular product/store's symbolic image and his/her
self-image resulting in self-congruity. For example, a con-
sumer perceives that a particular store is generally pa-
tronized by high social class consumers and she sees herself
as a high social class consumer. Such congruity will bias the
consumer's perception and evaluation of the product/store's
functional image (functional congruity). For example, the
same consumer who experienced self-congruity with the
store's user image is likely to form an initial favorable atti-
tude toward the store, which in turn favorably biases her
evaluation of the store's functional characteristics (e.g.,
FIGURE 1
Hypothesized Model
Self-
y
Congrult W
Conlumlr
BIhSvtor
Functional
Congrult W
,~ Str~nQ Influence
WeOk but |l~fllflcont
Influence
364 FALL, 1991
SELF-CONGRUITY VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CONGRUITY:
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
product assortment, product quality, prices, atmosphere,
customer service, among others). In contrast, a consumer
who experienced self-incongruity is likely to form an initial
unfavorable attitude which in turn biases her evaluation of
the store's functional characteristics in a negative way. Per-
ception and evaluation of functional attributes operate at a
conscious level to influence consumer dispositions. Self-
congruity is argued to operate at a more subtle or less con-
scious level, which in turn influences the consumer's con-
scious perception and evaluation of the product/store's
functional attributes (cf. Mason and Mayer 1971, 1973).
Also, note that self-congruity influences consumer behavior
directly but less strongly than functional congruity. That is,
the motivational tendency generated as a result of self-
congruity not only biases functional congruity, but also im-
pacts consumer behavior directly.
Markus (1980) argued that personality images associated
with the individual self (self-perceptions) and those associ-
ated with "others" (person perception) are cognitive
schemes organized at higher-levels in the cognitive hier-
archy. Cognitive schemes high on this hierarchy are referred
to as abstract schemes, and those which are low on the same
hierarchy are referred to as concrete schemes (Abelson
1976; Anderson 1980; Neisser 1976). Abstract schemes are
more generalized and may consist of a number of particu-
larized concrete schemes. Abstract schemes become more
accessible and are more easily activated under conditions of
high familiarity. The allocation of cognitive processing or
effort for abstract schemes is minimal relative to concrete
schemes (Wyer and Carlson 1979). Cognitive processing is
simplified by replacing several concrete schemes with an
abstract schema when only a general level of processing is
necessary. Once an abstract schema is activated and pro-
cessed, the same schema can be subjected to a decomposi-
tional procedure in which less abstract (or more concrete)
schemes are generated from the abstract ones. Furthermore,
abstract schemes are likely to exist as goals (Ableson 1976)
which determine concrete processing. Hence, processing of
concrete information may be instrumental in achieving self-
image goals.
If we accept the premise that (1) abstract schemes are
more accessible and are likely to be processed first and then
followed by concrete schemes, and (2) that self-image
schemes are more abstract and act as superordinate goals
guiding concrete information processing, we can thus infer
that self-related beliefs become activated and processed in
decision making prior to nonself-beliefs. Hence, self-
congruity type of processing (match/mismatch between the
product/store symbolic attributes and the consumer's self-
image) is more likely to occur prior to functional congruity
type of processing (match/mismatch between the prod-
uct/store functional attributes and the consumer's ideal or
desired functional attributes).
But then how do we explain the hypothesis of the biasing
effect of self-congruity on functional congruity? For exam-
ple, a self-congruity resulting in positive evaluation of the
product/store is likely to bias functional congruity in the
positive direction; and conversely, a negative evaluation re-
sulting from self-image congruity is likely to bias the resul-
tant evaluation from functional congruity in the negative
direction. Why?
JAMS
SIRGY, JOHAR, SAML1,
AND CLAIBORNE
Nisbett and Ross (1980) have addressed this issue in the
context of the on-going debate in psychodynamics versus
psychologic (or "hot" versus "cold" cognitions). Proponents
of the psychodynamics position have argued that informa-
tion processing is biased by motivational concerns. For ex-
ample, McGuire (1960) in an experimental study demon-
strated the motivational bias in information processing. The
study showed that people are more motivated to form new
beliefs that enhance oneself and less motivated to form
beliefs that debase oneself (cf. Dilehay, Insko, and Smith
1966; Snyder 1979). This phenomenon has come to be
known as the "self-serving bias" (or "ego-defensive bias")
in information processing in the social cognition literature
and has been supported by much research (see Nisbett and
Ross, 1980, for literature review). Most researchers have
attempted to demonstrate the self-serving bias in informa-
tion processing by showing asymmetries in the attributions
for outcomes that are high versus low in their relevance to
the actor's self-concept. For example, actors, in some situa-
tions, tend to take more responsibility for successes than for
failures. The underlying notion in the self-serving bias prin-
ciple is that people first process self-related information to
determine the self-enhancement properties of the informa-
tion, the outcome of which guide further processing related
to nonself information. In a consumer context, the self-
serving bias argues that consumer's information processing
of the concrete or functional attributes of a product/store is
influenced by a positive or negative motivational tendency
developed through information processing of self-related or
symbolic attributes.
This research can be used to explain the relationship be-
tween self-congruity, functional congruity, and consumer
behavior. The self-congruity variable involves abstract cog-
nitive schemes which become activated and processed at a
less-conscious level. This is then followed by the decom-
positional process in which specific functional attributes of
the product/store are generated and consequently evaluated.
The evaluation of these functional attributes is biased by a
motivational tendency developed as a result of self-
congruity. The overall evaluation of the functional attributes
may, in turn, strongly influence consumer behavior.
From the preceding discussion, one can hypothesize that
consumer behavior is more strongly predicted by functional
congruity than self-congruity (Hypothesis 1), and that func-
tional congruity is significantly (but not strongly) influ-
enced by self-congruity (Hypothesis 2). Note that Hypoth-
esis 2 predicts a weak or moderate influence, reflective of
the "bias" effect. That is, we surmise that the "bias" effect
of self-congruity will produce a significant but not a strong
influence on functional congruity. Four studies are reported
testing these two hypotheses using different consumer popu-
lations, different products/stores, and different methods and
measures. Findings that support the hypotheses may pro-
vide a strong indication that these relationships are indeed
robust. More specifically, the first study dealt with shoppers
of a discount department store and a clothing department
store. The absolute difference model was used to measure
self-congruity. Functional congruity was measured using
the belief-only model. The second study sought to refine the
self-congruity measures by employing a multiplicative
model involving symbolic store image, social self-image,
365 FALL, 1991
SELF-CONGRUITY VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CONGRUITY:
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
and evaluation weights. Functional congruity measures
were also refined through the use of the belief-evaluation
model. The study concentrated on a variety of products (and
product brands)_ The focus of that study was to demonstrate
the predictiveness of functional and self-congruity con-
structs (in relation to brand attitude and purchase intention)
across a variety of products. The fourth study also focused
on products, more specifically beer brands, but the study
employed a subjective measure of self-congruity which was
thought to produce greater predictiveness in brand attitude
and purchase intention.
STUDY ONE
Sampling
Two samples were gathered from two different stores
located in a southern, university town. The first sample (N
= 256) was essentially an intercept sample of people who
patronize a discount department store. The second sample
(N = 117) involved an intercept sample of shoppers who
patronize a clothing department store (replication).
The Store Loyalty Measure
Store loyalty was measured by using two indicators. The
first indicator measured the frequency of shopping visits to
the particular store. A five-point rating scale varying from
"twice a week, or more," to "less frequently (than once a
month)" was used. The other indicator involved a five-point
Likert scale which measured the consumer's willingness to
go to that specific store whenever the need arises. These
two indicators were equally weighted and summed to deter-
mine eacb respondent's general patronage to the store in
question. The correlation be~weer: ~hese ~wv ind{ca~ors was
high for both sets (r = ,603 for the Discount Department
Store Study and r = .725 for the Clothing Department Store
Study),
The Functional Congruity Measure
To measure the functional store-image construct, a mea-
sure previously used by Samli (1976), Lincoln (1978),
Samli and Sirgy (1981) was used. This measure is com-
posed of seven factors each of which has several attributes.
The factors and their corresponding attributes are: general
store characteristics (well known, well established), physi-
cal characteristics (clean, quite, elegant interior), price (low
prices, wide price range, reasonable price for the value
purchased), personnel (personnel are courteous, personnel
have nice appearance), promotion (store is highly recom-
mended by your friends, store uses good promotional de-
vices, store adverlising is highly believable), convenience
(store located conveniently), product (product selection is
wide, product mformalion is dependable), and services
(credit service is good, atmosphere is comfortable). Twenty
semantic differential scales were used to measure these
functional attributes.
To determine an overall functional congruity per respon-
dent, a summative index was used. In doing this, all the
semantic differential scales were transformed in such a way
JAMS
SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
AND CLAIBORNE
that the positive poles of the scales indicated a favorable
image. Therefore, the sum total score reflects the extent to
which a given respondent has a favorable evaluation of the
store, based on the store's functional attributes. Mathe-
matically formulated, a functional congruity score for an
individual respondent was derived as follows.
~Bi
i=1
where B i = Belief about store with respect to functional
attribute (i)
Self-Congruity Measure
Based on the research in the consumer self-concept (see
Sirgy 1982 for literature review), the generalized absolute
difference congruity has been demonstrated to be most pre-
dictive of product preference and purchase intention, com-
pared to other distance models. Therefore, the generalized
absolute difference congruity model was used to obtain
scores for self-congruity (comparison between symbolic
store-image and social and ideal social self-image--the
lower the score the higher the congruity and vice versa).
Mathematically formulated, a self-congruity score (based
on the match/mismatch between the store symbolic at-
tributes and the consumer's social self-image or ideal social
self-image) for an individual respondent was derived as
follows.
pSTb - sbl
j=l
where
STIj =symboIic store image ~')
Stj = social self-image (j) or ideal social self-image (j)
In a preliminary procedure, a list of approximately 50
possible personality attributes associated with general retail
stores was gathered from a convenience sample of eight
subjects. Subjects were asked to write down the personality
traits of those shoppers who frequently patronize the two
stores selected for this study. Their responses were then
subjected to a content analysis. The four most consensual
and nonredundant attributes were accordingly selected;
these were modem versus traditional, friendly versus for-
mal, classy versus folksy, and casual versus sophisticated.
These bipolar adjectives were then used in a semantic differ-
ential format to measure the symbolic store-image.
The same form of semantic differential scales were used
twice, once to measure social self-image and again to mea-
sure ideal social self-image. The verbal cue for measuring
social self-image was "To what extent do you think people
see you as being . . . " The verbal cue used for measuring
ideal social self was "To what extent would you like people
to see you as beiag . . . . "
Results
Table l shows the results of a set of regression analyses
involving different models in which store loyalty is pre-
366 FALL, 1991
SELF-CONGRUITY VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CONGRUITY: SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR AND CLAIBORNE

TABLE 1
Store Loyalty as a Function of Functional Congruity and Self-Congruity
Betas

Study Model OC I OC TSC MA Constant R2 F-Value

Study One 1 .480*** -.251 .230 75.422***
(Discount 2 - . 300 * * * 3.442" * * .090 24.785***
Dept. Store 3 -.037 -.279*** 3.450*** .095 13.150"**
N = 254) 4 -.133"* .433*** .285 .249 41.506"**
5 -.053 -.087 .431 *** .297 9249 27.570***

Replication of 1 .401 *** .286 .161 22.010"**

Study One 2 -.074 2.744*** 9 .628
(Clothing 3 - . 112 .035 2.741 * * * .007 .427
Dept. Store 4 .010 .404*** .303 .161 10.873"**
N = 117) 5 - . 195" .213" .429"** .143 .177 8.025**

Study One 1 .393*** .379 .154 67.331'**

(Total 2 -.238*** 3.237*** .056 22.031"*
N = 370) 3 -.097 - . 156"* 39 .057 11.043"**
4 -.121"* .357*** 9 9170 37.639***
5 - 9 .033 9 .713"* .174 25.745***

OC = Social Self-Congruity (match/mismatch between symbolic store image and social self-image)
IOC = Ideal Social Self-Congruity (match/mismatch between symbolic store image and ideal social self-image)
TSC = Total Self-Congruity (OC + IOC)
MA = Multiattribute Attitude Model (Functional Congruity)

Model 1 = Store Loyalty as a function of MA

Model 2 = Store Loyalty as a function of TSC
Model 3 = Store Loyalty as a function of OC and IOC
Model 4 = Store Loyalty as a function of MA and TSC
Model 5 = Store Loyalty as a function of MA, OC, and IOC

*p < .10
**p < .05
***p < .01

dicted by functional congruity and self-congruity. These
results show that store loyalty is a positive function of both
functional congruity and self-congruity (in the discount de-
partment store study, in the clothing department store study,
and in the two studies combined). As expected (Hypothesis
1), the results also showed that store loyalty is more strong-
ly and significantly predicted by functional congruity than
by self-congruity (in the discount department store study, in
the clothing department store study, and in the two studies
combined).
Table 2 shows the results of a set of regression analyses
involving different models in which functional congruity is
predicted by self-congruity (Hypothesis 2). These results
show that functional congruity is significantly and moder-
ately predicted by self-congruity (based on the two studies
and the combined data). Hence, the hypothesis that func-
tional congruity is a positive function of self-congruity (Hy-
pothesis 2) was supported.
clothing boutiques. Every third customer was approached
for an interview, and the survey was administered at differ-
ent times throughout the day and throughout the week.
The Store Loyalty Measure
Store loyalty was measured through three items placed at
the beginning part of the survey questionnaire. The first was
"How often do you buy here? Twice a week or more, once a
week, once in two weeks, once a month, less frequently."
The second was "How would you characterize your loyalty
to this store? I am very loyal, I am somewhat loyal, I am
less loyal than most people, and I shop around a lot." The
third was "How would you rate this store compared to your
ideal store? Very poor, poor, adequate, good, very good."
The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was found to be
.85 indicating high internal consistency among these indica-
tors. Consequently, a composite measure of loyalty was
developed by summing the three indicators.

STUDY TWO The Functional Congruity Measure

Sampling The functional congruity measure used in Study One was

slightly modified to include measures of importance
One-hundred and ten (N = 110) adult shoppers were weights pertaining to each functional attribute. Functional
intercepted and interviewed as they came out of two upscale congruity was the measured using a belief-importance type

JAMS 367 FALL, 1991

SELF-CONGRUITY VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CONGRUITY: SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR AND CLAIBORNE

TABLE 2
Functional Congruity as a Function of Self-Congruity
Betas
Study Model OC IOC TSC Constant Re F-Value
Study One 1 -.386*** 3.732*** .150 44.048***
(Discount Dept. 2 -,414"** 3.748*** .172 52.118"**
Store N = 254) 3 -,311"** 3.642*** .096 26,815"**
4 .038 -.443*** 3.739*** .172 25,894***

Replication of 1 -.210"** 3.909*** ,044 5.14'

Study One 2 -.259*** 3.950*** ,067 8.192'**
(Clothing Dept. 3 - . 143 3.831 *** .020 2.338
Store N = 117) 4 .194 -,415"** 3.917"** .080 4.918'**

Study One (Total 1 -.326*** 3.798*** .106 43.795***

N = 370) 2 -.380*** 3.836*** .144 62.201'**
3 -.230*** 3.689*** .053 20.469***
4 .165"* -.508*** 3,805*** .155 33.614"**

OC = Social Self-Congruity (match/mismatch between symbolic store image and social self-image)
IOC = Ideal Social Self-Congruity (match/mismatch between symbolic store image and ideal social self-image)
TSC = Total Self-Congruity (OC + IOC)

Model 1 = Functional Congruity as a function of TSC

Model 2 = Functional Congruity as a function of IOC
Model 3 = Functional Congruity as a function of OC
Model 4 = Functional Congruity as a function of OC and IOC

*p < , | 0
**p < .05
***p < .01

of multiattribute attitude model (Bass and Talarzyk 1972;

Sheth 1973; Sheth and Talarzyk 1972). More specifically, f f (STIj) (SSIj) (EWj)
j=l

•
i=l
Bili
where
B i = Belief strength of functional attribute (i)
I i : Importance weight of functional attribute (i)
Each respondent was provided with the following instruc-
tions: "The following are some features of this store. There is
no correct or incorrect answer. Please check the place which
indicates your feelings about each store feature. Also please
evaluate each feature on the basis of your ideal store."
Belief strengths were measured using a set of bipolar
5-point scales involving the same functional store image
attributes used in Study One. Following each B i measure
was the I i measure. The I i measure was phrased "How im-
portant is it to you as it meets your ideal standards?" A
5-point bipolar scale varying from "very important" to
"very unimportant" was used to tap the importance re-
sponses. [Responses pertaining to B i and I i were recorded in
such a way that the higher the score the greater the function-
al congruity.]
where
STIj = symbolic store image (j)
SSIj = social self-image (j)
EWj = evaluation weight of (])
Symbolic store image (STIj) was measured using the ques-
tion "To what extent do you think this store has an image of
being . . . ?" Four image attributes were presented in the
context of semantic differential scales. These were mod-
ern/traditional, friendly/formal, classy/folksy, casual/
sophisticated. Social self-image (SSIj) was measured using
the question "To what extent do you think people see you as
being . . . . " The four symbolic attributes used to tap SSI~
were presented in the context of semantic differential scales.
Each evaluation weight (EWj) was measured following each
corresponding SSIj through the question "What is your feel-
ing about this?" Response to this question was tapped on a
5-point bipolar scale varying from "I like it a lot" to "I
dislike it strongly."
Results

Self-Congruity Measure Table 3 shows the results of a set of regression analysis

involving store loyalty and functional congruity as depen-
Based on the work in self-concept (Sirgy and Danes dent variables. As hypothesized, these results indicate that
1982), a self-congruity measure was developed. The mea- store loyalty is more strongly and significantly predicted by
sure is based on the following model. functional congruity than by self-congruity (Hypothesis 1),

JAMS 368 FALL, 1991

SELF-CONGRUITY VERSUS F U N C T I O N A L CONGRUITY: SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
PREDICTORS OF C O N S U M E R BEHAVIOR AND C L A I B O R N E

TABLE 3
Store Loyalty as a Function of Functional Congruity and Self-Congruity, and Functional Congruity as a
Function of Self-Congruity
Independent
Variables (Betas)
Dependent
Study Model Variable TSC MA Constant R2 F- Value
Study Two 1 SL .421"** 1.695"** .177 24.285***
(Clothing 2 SL .343*** 1.888"** .1t7 12.890"**
Boutique 3 SL .126 .389*** 1.551 *** .215 13.002"**
N = 110)
4 MA .374*** 7.222*** .139 16.353"**
SL = Store Loyalty
MA = Multiattribute Attitude Model (Functional Congruity)
TSC = Total Self-Congruity

Model 1 = SL as a function of M A
Model 2 = SL as a function of TSC
Model 3 = SL as a function of MA and TSC
Model 4 = MA as a function of TSC

*p < .10
* * p < .05
* * * p < .01

and (2) that functional congruity can be significantly pre- 9 I would be inclined to buy a Focal Brand over Refer-
dicted by self-congruity (Hypothesis 2). ent Brand.

Note that subjects evaluated specific brands (focal brand)

STUDY THREE
Sampling
Eight different samples were obtained, each correspond-
ing to a different product (eight products used in the study).
The goal was to obtain 70 respondents for each of the eight
samples (eight products), a total of 560 respondents. Mar-
keting students were used as consumer subjects for this
study. The products selected were products commonly used
by college students. These were (1) auto, (2) camera, (3)
tires, (4) watch, (5) soft drinks, (6) TV, (7) beer, and (8)
headache remedy. Students were handed the questionnaire
and asked to take it home and fill it out for an incentive of
1% point extra credit (toward the final grade). A total of 428
students completed the questionnaire producing a response
rate of 76%. More specifically, the responses were broken
down as follows: auto (n = 53), camera (n = 39), watch (n
= 47), beer (n = 64), tires (n = 35), soft drink (n = 70), TV
(n = 70), and headache remedy (n = 70).
Attitude/Intention Measures
in relation to other brands (referent brand). The Cronbach
Alpha Coefficients for each of the eight products varied
from .72 to .98 indicating that these attitude/intention in-
dicators are highly interrelated. Since these items were
found to be highly consistent with one another, an overall
attitude/intention score was computed by averaging the four
items.
Self-Congruity Measures
Four self-congruity models were used in this study. These
are (1) actual congruity (match between product image and
actual self-image), (2) ideal congruity (match between prod-
uct image and ideal self-image), (3) social congruity (match
between product image and social self-image), and (4) ideal
social congruity (match between product image and ideal
social self-image). These models have been traditionally
operationalized using a distance index, i.e., the greater the
distance between the product image and self-image the
lower the congruity score and vice versa (Sirgy 1982,
1985a).

Four self-report items using 5-point Likert-type scales IPj - sjl

were used to measure attitude/intention for each of the eight
products. These were
9 I like Focal Brand better than Referent Brand.
9 I would use Focal Brand more than I would Referent
Brand.
9 Focal Brand is my preferred brand over Referent
Brand.
j=l
where
Pi -- product image along attribute (]), 1 ~< Pj ~< 5
Sj = actual (or ideal, social, or ideal social) self-image
along attribute (]), 1 ~< Sj~
< 5
Hence, by representing the Sj with actual self-image, this
distance index captures actual self-congruity, ideal self-

JAMS 369 FALL, 1991

SELF-CONGRUITYVERSUS FUNCTIONALCONGRUITY:
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMERBEHAVIOR
congruity when the Sj reflects ideal self-image, social self-
congruity when the Sj reflects social self-image, ideal social
self-congruity when the Sj reflects ideal social self-image.
In order to elicit the product image attributes pertaining to
each of the selected product, a preliminary study was con-
ducted. Thirty-nine college students participated in the pre-
liminary study. Each subject received a questionnaire in-
volving the eight products. After describing each product
the subject was instructed to "Tell us in your own words,
why you would or would not buy X." Subjects were to
respond to this item in an open-ended manner after the
response cue "I would buy x compared to y because . . . . " o r
"I would not buy x compared to y b e c a u s e . . . "
The open-ended responses were content-analyzed for
symbolic evaluative criteria. An example of a symbolic
evaluative criterion (product image attribute) is "I would not
buy this car because it is not me. The type of person who
drives this car is economy-minded. Examples of product
image attributes related to the automobile that were selected
for inclusion in the self-congruity models include stylish,
sporty, classy, status conscious, fun-loving person, quality
conscious, and economy-minded.
The product image attributes elicited from the prelimin-
ary test were used to measure the product image, the actual
self-image, the ideal self-image, the social self-image, and
the ideal social self-image. More specifically, the product
image was measured using a set of 5-point Likert-scale
items. The response cue used for the product image measure
was "Imagine a person who might possess (or prefer to buy)
Focal Brand and compare him/her with a typical person
who might prefer to buy Referent Brand. Indicate your
agreement or disagreement to the following items that de-
scribe the person who might typically prefer to buy Focal
Brand. Each Likert scale contained a "no-opinion" catego-
ry, which was treated as missing value in the statistical
analyses. An example of a symbolic attribute used to tap the
product image in the context of the automobile question-
naire is, "The owner of a Honda Civic automobile is a more
stylish person than the owner of a Chevy Chevette." This
item involves the symbolic attribute of "stylish" phrased in
the context of the automobile questionnaire.
The actual self-image was measured using the same set of
symbolic attributes (used to measure the product image)
along 5-point Likert scales. The response cue used to tap the
actual self-image was "Indicate your agreement or disagree-
ment to the following items that describe your 'actual
self '--that is, the sort of person you think you are, or the
way in which you actually see yourself." An example of a
symbolic attribute used to tap the actual self-image in the
context of the automobile product situation is "I am the type
of person who is stylish." The response cue used to tap the
ideal self-image was "Indicate your agreement or disagree-
ment to the following items that describe your 'ideal s e l f ' -
that is, the sort of person you would most like to be (or
being), or the way in which you ideally see yourself." An
example of a symbolic attribute used to tap the ideal self-
image in the context of the automobile product situation is
"I like to be the type of person who is stylish." The response
cue used to tap the social self-image was "Indicate your
agreement or disagreement to the following items that de-
scribe your 'social self'--that is, the sort of person you are
JAMS
SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
AND CLAIBORNE
seen by others, or the way you believe other people see
you." An example of a symbolic attribute used to tap the
social self-image in the context of the automobile product
situation is "Those people who are close to me see me as
being stylish." The response cue used to tap the ideal social
self-image was "Indicate your agreement or disagreement to
the following items that describe your 'ideal social s e l f ' -
that is, the sort of person you like to be seen by others, or
the way you want others to see you." An example of a
symbolic attribute used to tap the ideal social self-image in
the context of the automobile product situation is "I like
those people who are close to me to see me as being styl-
ish."
Functional Congruity Measures
From the preliminary study, a set of functional (perfor-
mance related) evaluative criteria were content-analyzed
from the open-ended responses to the purchase motivation
measures in the preliminary study described in the preced-
ing section. From the content analysis results, a set of func-
tional attributes were formulated specific to each of the
eight products (e.g., functional attributes for the automobile
included foreign made, fun to drive, economical, well-
built, better MPG, reliable, better value, safe, better accel-
eration, stops quickly, little interior noise, easy to maintain,
comfortable ride, and large interior). These attributes were
used to measure the component variables involved in the
multiattribute attitude model. The belief-importance multi-
attribute attitude model was used to measure functional con-
gruity (see Study Two for a mathematical description of the
model).
The belief strength (Bi) variable was measured using the
response cue "Listed below are possible attributes of Prod-
uct X. For each of these attributes, please indicate by cir-
cling the appropriate number how likely or unlikely it is that
Focal Brand would possess each attribute compared to Ref-
erent Brand." Response to this question was formulated in
terms of a set of functional attributes measured using a
5-point likelihood scale (from "very unlikely" to "very like-
ly"). A "don't know" category was also included, and re-
sponses to this category were treated as missing values.
The importance (li) variable was measured using the re-
sponse cue "If you were considering purchasing Product X
in general, how important or unimportant are the following
characteristics to you? For most people some things are
more important than others. Please circle the number which
is closest to the degree of importance you would attach to
that characteristic when shopping for a Product X." The
same functional attributes used to tap the belief strength
variable were also used to tap the importance variable. The
response scale was a 5-point scale varying from "very unim-
portant" to "very important." A "no-opinion" category was
included and responses to this category were treated as mis-
sing in the statistical analysis.
Results
Table 4 shows the results of a set of regression analysis
involving attitude/intention as a function of functional con-
gruity and self-congruity and functional congruity as a func-
370 FALL, 1991
SELF-CONGRUITY VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CONGRUITY: SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR AND CLAIBORNE

TABLE 4
Attitude/Intention as a Function of Functional Congruity and Self-Congruity, and Functional Congruity
as a Functioning Self-Congruity
Dependent Independent Variables (Betas)
Study Model Variable SC IC OC IOC TSIC MA Constant R2 F- Value
Study Thme 1 A/I .611"** 1.685"** .374 221.506'**
(Total 2 A/I -.211'** 3.635*** .045 17.219'**
N = 428) 3 A/I -.302** .066 .002 .000 3.657*** .059 5.803***
4 A/I -.161'** .595*** 2.069*** .399 120.282'**
5 A/I -.274*** .145 .046 -.096 .599*** 2.078*** .411 50.006***
6 MA -.097* 12.576"** .009 3.830*
7 MA -.057 12.115"** .003 1.295
8 MA -.091" 12.375"** .008 3.408*
9 MA -.113"* 12.546"** .013 5.269***
10 MA -.105"* 12.492"** .011 4.562**
11 MA -.027 -.254** -.031 .106 12.565"** .017 1.754"
AC = Actual Self-Congruity
IC = Ideal Self-Congruity
OC = Social Self-Congruity
IOC = Ideal Social Self-Congruity
TSIC = Total Self-Congruity (AC + IC + OC + IOC)
MA = Multiattribute Attitude Model (Functional Congruity)

Model 1 = Attitude/Intention (A/I) as a function of MA

Model 2 = Attitude/Intention (A/I) as function of TSC
Model 3 = Attitude/Intention (A/I) as a function of AC, IC, OC, & IOC
Model 4 = Attitude/Intention (A/I) as a function of MA & TSC
Model 5 = Attitude/Intention (A/I) as a function of MA, AC, IC, OC, & IOC
Model 6 = Functional Congruity (MA) as a Function of TSC
Model 7 = Functional Congruity (MA) as a Function of IOC
Model 8 = Functional Congruity (MA) as a Function of OC
Model 9 = Functional Congruity (MA) as a Function of IC
Model 10 = Functional Congruity (MA) as a Function of AC
Model 11 = Functional Congruity (MA) as a Function of IOC, OC, IC, & AC

*p < .10
**p < .05
***p < .01

tion of self-congruity, pooled across the eight products. The
results show that attitude/intention is a positive function of
both functional congruity and self-congruity. Hypothesis 1
was clearly supported by the pooled data, i.e., the general
pattern indicated that attitude/intention is more strongly and
significantly predicted by functional congruity than by self-
congruity.
The results of a set of regression analyses involving func-
tional congruity as a function of self-congruity show that
functional congruity is weakly predicted by self-congruity,
providing support for Hypothesis 2.
STUDY FOUR
Study Four uses beer as a product. Although beer is used
in Study Three, the focus of Study Four is the use of a
different method to measure self-congruity.
Sampling
Eighty-three (N = 83) marketing students completed a
survey about beer drinking for a grade incentive. Response
rate was 94 percent.
The Functional Congruity Measure
Functional congruity was measured through a belief-only
type of model (see Study One for a mathematical descrip-
tion of the model). This was done as follows. First respon-
dents were presented with a list of beer brands (20 brands)
and asked to (1) indicate the brand of beer they drink most
often, and (2) indicate one other beer that they are simply
familiar with, subsequently referred to as brand (A). Re-
spondents were then instructed to "circle that attribute
category which best characterizes beer brand A." The fol-
lowing attribute dimensions were provided to the respon-
dent.
9 tastes bitter/tastes smooth
9 light in calories/heavy in calories
9 light in color/dark in color
9 high in price/low in price
9 comes in can/comes in bottle
9 is imported/is domestic
Each belief strength was measured as follows.
"Each attribute of beer brand (A) can be evaluated
according to the extent to which it is better or worse

JAMS 371 FALL, 1991

SELF-CONGRUITYVERSUS FUNCTIONALCONGRUITY: SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR AND CLAIBORNE

as compared to the brand you drink most often. For 9 conservative/modem

example, a person might feel that the smooth taste of 9 leader/follower
beer brand (A) is not as good as that of the beer 9 city person/country person.
brand he/she drinks most often, and therefore rates
the "taste smooth" attribute of beer brand (A) as - 1 Responses were tapped on the 4-point difference scale
on the following scale: shown above. A self-congruity score was computed by re-
versing the rating and summing the individual attribute rat-
-2 -! 0 +l +2 ings (hence the higher the score the higher the self-
Much Worse Slightly Worse Almost the Slightly Better Much Better congruity).
Compared to Compared to Same C~mpared Compared to Compared to
My Brand My Brand to My Brand My Brand My Brand
of Beer of Beer of Beer of Beer of Beer Attitude/Intention Measures

Now evaluate the extent to which attribute of beer
brand (A) is better or worse compared to the beer
brand you drink most often. Circle the appropriate
value below that matches your feelings toward beer
brand (A)."
Self-Congruity Measure
Self-image congruity was measured using the model
n (2) does not appeal to me much, (3) neutral, (4) slightly
i=l
where D i = psychological or subjective difference be-
tween how one views oneself and image of beer brand (A).
Respondents followed these instructions:
"How different are the images portrayed by beer
brand (A) from how you see yourself. For example,
a person who might characterize a beer brand as
having an outdoorsy image and also sees him-
self/herself as the outdoorsy type may not see any
difference between how he sees himself/herself and
the image portrayed by this beer brand, and there-
fore assigns a no difference rating of 0 using the
following scale:
No Difference 0 1 2 3 4 Lot of
Between Beer
Image &
Self-Image
On the other hand, another person who charac-
terized the same beer brand as having an outdoorsy
image may also see himself/herself as being the
home-body type and therefore assigns a high differ-
ence rating of 4 using the same scale.
Evaluate the extent to which you note differences
or no differences between how you see yourself and
beer brand (A) by circling the appropriate number."
At this point a list of image dimensions were presented,
these were
9 outdoorsy/homebody
9 sporty/quiet
9 classy/folksy
9 professional/hardhat
9 patriotic/continental
Attitude/Intention toward the indicated brand of beer was
measured using four items. These were:
Indicate the extent to which the beer brand you
checked appeals to you compared to the beer brand
you drink most often.
Responses were tapped using a 5-point scale involving the
following categories: (1) does not appeal to me at all,
appeals to me, and (5) appeals to me much.
The second item was phrased as follows:
Indicate the extent you like or dislike the beer brand
you checked compared to the beer brand you drink
most often.
Responses were tapped using a 5-point scale involving the
following categories: (1) I dislike very much, (2) I dislike
somewhat, (3) neutral, (4) I like somewhat, and (5) I like
very much.
The third item was phrased as follows:
Indicate the extent to which you prefer or do not
prefer the beer brand you checked, compared to the
beer brand you drink most often.
Difference Responses were tapped using a 5-point scale involving the
Between Beer following categories: (1) I do not prefer at all, (2) I do not
Image & Self- prefer that much, (3) neutral, (4) I prefer somewhat, and
Image (5) I prefer very much.
The fourth item was phrased as follows:
Indicate the extent to which you intend or do not
intend to purchase and drink the beer brand you
checked.
Responses were tapped on a 5-point scale involving the
following categories: (1) I do not intend to at all, (2) I do not
intend to that much, (3) neutral, (4) I intend to somewhat,
and (5) I intend to very much. The Cronbach Alpha re-
liability coefficient was .92 indicating high internal con-
sistency. A composite index of attitude/intention was then
developed by summing the four indicators.
Results
Table 5 shows the results of a set of regression analysis
involving attitude/intention and functional congruity as de-

JAMS 372 FALL, 1991

SELF-CONGRUITY VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CONGRUITY:
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
TABLE 5
Attitude/Intention as a Function of Functional Congruity and Self-Congruity, and Functional Congruity
as a Function of Self-Congruity
Dependent
Variable
Study Model (Betas)
Study Four 1 A/I
( N = 83) 2 A/I
3 A/I
4 MA
A/I = Attitude/Intention
MA = Multiattribute Attitude (Functional Congruity)
TSC = Total Self-Congruity
Model 1 = Attitude/intention as a function of MA
Model 2 = Attitude/intention as a function of TSC
Model 3 = Attitude/intention as a function of MA & TSC
Model 4 = Functional Congruity as a function of TSC
pendent variables. These results indicate that attitude/ in-
tention is predicted individually by functional congruity and
self-congruity, and is more strongly and significantly pre-
dicted by functional congruity than by self-congruity (Hy-
pothesis 1). The results were also supportive of Hypothesis
2 in that functional congruity was found to be moderately
and significantly predicted by self-congruity.
CONCLUSION
The overall pattern of results from the four studies indi-
cated that consumer behavior is indeed a positive function
of both functional and self-congruity. With respect to Hy-
pothesis I, the results indicated that functional congruity is
more predictive of consumer behavior than self-congruity.
The hypothesis that functional congruity is "biased" by self-
congruity (Hypothesis 2) was also supported. The strength
of the relationship was found to be moderate (or weak),
which as hypothesized is reflective of a "bias effect." That
is, the "bias hypothesis" predicts a significant but weak
relationship between self-congruity and functional con-
gruity.
Multiattribute attitude and self-image congruence models
are models commonly used in positioning analysis, which
in turn determine message claims in marketing communica-
tion. Marketing managers use these models to strategically
position a product brand (or store) in such a way to occupy a
niche in the marketplace. Multiattribute attitude models tra-
ditionally use functional attributes in modelling consumers'
attitudes/intention (or disposition) toward a given product
(store); whereas self-image congruence models are designed
to predict consumers' disposition toward a product (store)
given symbolic or image-related attributes.
The findings of this research suggest that multiattribute
attitude and self-image congruence models play different
roles in consumer decision-making. Multiattribute attitude
models have been shown to be highly predictive of con-
sumer behavior. However, the findings also confirm that
JAMS
SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
AND CLAIBORNE
Independent Variables
(Betas)
TSC MA Constant Re F- Value
.521"** .301 .271 20.637***
.337*** 2.136"** .113 9.968***
.219"* .453*** -.657 .304 16.609"**
.258** 2.513"** .067 5.497**
self-congruity not only moderately influences consumer be-
havior, but also biases functional congruity. For the market-
ing communication person, these findings suggest that cer-
tain product/store images should be incorporated in the
product/store message in such a way to induce self-
congruity with the target consumers. This would not only
directly enhance a favorable attitude/intention toward the
product/store, but also indirectly enhance a favorable atti-
tude/intention through producing a motivational bias to pro-
cess the functional attributes in a positive way, i.e., leading
to a favorable attitude/intention. In other words, the find-
ings of the four studies substantiate the important comple-
mentary role of self-image congruence to that of functional
congruence in influencing consumer behavior.
NOTES
1. The actual self-congruity model describes how the match between
consumers' actual self-image (how they see themselves) and the
product image (the stereotypic image of the generalized product
user) influences attitude toward the product. The ideal self-
congruity model describes how the match between consumers' ideal
self-image (how they like to see themselves) and the product image
influences attitude. The social self-congruity model describes bow
the match between consumers' social self-image (bow they believe
they are seen by others) and the product image influences attitude.
The ideal social self-congruity model describes how the match be-
tween consumers' ideal social self-image (how they like to be seen
by others) and product image influences attitude. Finally, the affec-
tive self- (social) congruity models describe how the combined
effects of actual (social) self-image and ideal (ideal social) self-
image in relation to the product image influence attitude.
2. We chose to use the term "functional congruity" not only to main-
tain consistency and parallelism with "self-congruity," but also to
point out that the underlying processes involving functional- and
self-congruity are very much alike. Both processes involve evaluat-
ing attributes of a particular product/store against some referent. In
self-congruity, the referent may be the actual self-image, ideal self-
image, etc. The attributes are symbolic in nature. In functional
congruity, the referent may be an ideal product/store, a competitor,
product/store, etc. The attributes, in turn, are functional or
performance-like.
373 FALL, 1991
SELF-CONGRUITY VERSUS FUNCTIONAL CONGRUITY:
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P. 1976. "A Script Theory of Understanding, Attitude, and
Behavior." In Cognition and Social Behavior. Eds. J. Carroll and T.
Payne, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, John R. 1980. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. San
Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Pre-
dicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bass, Frank M. and W. Wayne Talarzyk. 1972. "An Attitude Model for the
Study of Brand Preferences." Journal of Marketing Research 9 (Febru-
ary): 93-96 9
Birdwell, A. E. 1968. "A Study of Influence of Image Congruence on
Consumer Choice." Journal of Business 41: 76-88.
Claibome, C. B. and M. Joseph Sirgy. 1990. "Self-Image Congruence as a
Model of Consumer Attitude Formation and Behavior: A Conceptual
Review and Guide for Future Research." In Developments in Marketing
Science, Vol. 13, pp. 1-7. Ed. B.J. Dunlap. Cullowhee, NC: Academy
of Marketing of Marketing Science.
Dilehay, R., C. Insko, and M. Smith. 1966. "Logical Consistency and
Attitude Change." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3: 646-
654.
Dolich, Ira J. 1969. "Congruence Relationship between Self-lmages and
Product Brands." Journal of Marketing Research 6 (February): 80-84.
Eriksen, Mary Kay and M. Joseph Sirgy. 1989. "Achievement Motivation
and Clothing Behavior of Working Women." Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality 4 (4): 307-326.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Grubb, E. L. and B. L. Stem. 1971. "Self-Concept and Significant Oth-
ers." Journals of Marketing Research 8: 382-385.
Lincoln, Douglas J. 1978. "The Effects of Comparative Advertising on the
Department Store Image: An Experimental Analysis." Dissertation. Vir-
ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at Blacksburg.
Lutz, Richard J. and James R. Bettman. 1977. "Multiattribute Models in
Marketing: A Bicentennial Review. In Consumer and Industrial Buying
Behavior, pp. 137-150. Eds. A. G. Woodside, J. N. Sheth, and P. D.
Bennet. New York, NY: Elsevier-North Holland Publishing.
Maheshwari, A. K. 1974. Self-Product lmage Congruence: A Macro-Level
Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
Malhotra, Naresh. 1981. "A Scale to Measure Self-Concepts, Person Con-
cepts, and Product Concepts." Journal of Marketing Research 18: 456-
464.
- - . 1988. "Self-Concept and Product Choice: An Integrated Perspec-
tive." Journal of Economic Psychology 9.
Markus, Hazel. 1980. "The Self in Thought and Memory." In The Self in
Social Psychology. Eds. Daniel M. Wegner and Robin R. Vallacher.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mason, J. Barry and M. L. Mayer. 1970. "The Problem of the Self-
Concept in Store Studies." Journal of Marketing 34 (April): 67-69.
Mason, J. Barry and M. L. Mayer. 1973. "Insight into the Image Determi-
nants of Fashion Specialty Outlets." Journal of Business Research 1
(Summer): 73-80.
McGuire, W. J. 1960. "A Syllogistic Analysis of Cognitive Relation-
ships." In Attitude Organization and Change. Ed. M. J. Rosenberg, C.
I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Ableson, and J. W. Brehm. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Meyer, R. J. 1981. "A Model of Multiattribute Judgments under Attribute
Uncertainty and Informational Constraint." Journal of Marketing Re-
search 18 (November): 428-444.
Neisser, Urlic. 1976. Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of
Cognitive Psychology. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Nisbett, Richard and Lee Ross. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and
Shortcomings of Social Judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Rosenberg, Milton, J. 1956. "Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Affect."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 53 (November): 367-372.
Ross, Ivan 1971. "Self-Concept and Brand Preference." Journal of the
University of Chicago 44: 38-50.
Samli, A. C. 1976. "Segmentation Index and Store Image in Retail and
Service Establishments: A New Direction in Marketing Research for
JAMS
SIRGY, JOHAR, SAMLI,
AND CLAIBORNE
Retailers." In Research that Works for Today's Marketing Problems,
Proceedings of ESOMAR Conference, pp. 143-155. Venice, Italy.
Samli, A. C. and M. Joseph Sirgy. 1981. "A Multidimensional Approach
to Analyzing Store Loyalty: A Predictive Model." In The Changing
Marketing Environment: New Theories and Applications, pp. 113- I 16.
Eds. Ken Bernhardt and Bill Kehoe. Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association.
Sheth, Jagdish. 1973. "Brand Profiles from Beliefs and Importance." Jour-
nal of Advertising Research 13 (February): 37-42.
Sheth, Jagdish and W. Wayne Talarzyk. 1972. "Perceived Instrumentality
and Value Importance as Determinants of Attitudes." Journal of Market-
ing Research 9 (February): 6-9.
Sirgy, M. Joseph. 1982. "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical
Review." Journal of Consumer Research 9 (December): 287-300.
. 1985a. "Self-lmage/Product-lmage Congruity and Consumer
Decision-Making." International Journal of Management 2 (December):
49-63 9
- - . 1985b. "Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict
Purchase Motivation." Journal of Business Research 13 (June): 195-
206.
91986. Self-Congruity: Toward a Theory of Personality and Cyber-
netics. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
- - . 1990. "Self-Cybernetics: Toward an Integrated Model of Self-
Concept Processes." Systems Research 7 (1): 19-32.
Sirgy, M. Joseph and Jeffrey Danes. 1982. "Self-Image/Product-lmage
Congruence Models: Testing Selected Models 9 In Advances in Con-
sumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 556-561. Ed. Andrew Mitchell. Ann Ar-
bor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Sirgy, M. Joseph and A. C. Samli. 1985. "A Path Analytic Model of Store
Loyalty Involving Self-Concept, Store Image, Socioeconomic Status,
and Geographic Loyalty." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
13 (Summer): 265-291.
Snyder, Mark L. 1979. "Self-Monitoring Processes." In Advances in Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, Vol. 12, 86-128. Ed. Leon Berkowitz.
New York, NY: Academic Press 9
Wildt, A. R., A. V. Bruno, and J. L. Ginter. 1981. "Attitude Models."
Journal of Advertising Research 21 (August): 61-70.
Wilkie, William and Edgar A. Pessemier. 1973. "Issues in Marketing's
Use of Multiattribute Attitude Models." Journal of Marketing Research
10 (November): 428-441.
Wyer, Robert S., Jr. and Donald E. Carlston. 1979. Social Cognition,
Inference, and Attribution. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
M. Joseph Sirgy is a consumer/marketing psychologist
(Ph.D., U/Mass, 1979) and Professor of Marketing at Vir-
ginia Tech. His research interests involve consumer self-
concept, consumer social cognition, and issues related to
quality of life. He has published extensively in so-
cial/behavioral science, managerial, and systems-related
journals. He is the author of Social Cognition and Con-
sumer Behavior (New York: Praeger, 1983), Marketing as
Social Behavior: A General Systems Theory (New York:
Praeger, 1985), Self-Congruity: Toward a Theory of Person-
ality and Cybernetics (New York: Praeger, 1986).
J. S. (Vic) Johar is Professor of Marketing at California
State University, San Bernardino. He obtained his Ph.D. in
Marketing at the Faculty of Management, McGill Univer-
sity, Montreal. He has published in the Journal of Travel
Research, Journal of Direct Marketing Research, Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, Canadian Journal
of Behavioral Science, International Journal of Consumer
Marketing, and Journal of Business and Psychology. His
current interests include cross-national research, and pre-
374 FALL, 1991
SELF-CONGRUITYVERSUS FUNCTIONALCONGRUITY:
PREDICTORS OF CONSUMERBEHAVIOR
senting graduate and executive seminars on "How to Com-
pete in International Markets."
A. C. Samli is Research Professor of Marketing and Inter-
national Business at the University of North Florida. He
obtained his Ph.D. in Marketing at Michigan State. He has
published extensively in retailing and international market-
ing.
JAMS
SIRGY, JOHAR, SAML1,
AND CLAIBORNE
C. B. Claiborne (M.B.A., M.E.) is Assistant Professor of
Marketing at James Madison University. He is currently
finishing his dissertation in the area of Self-Congruity and
Individual Differences. His previous work has been pub-
lished in Advances in Consumer Research, Proceedings
of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Proceedings of
the International Conference on Marketing and Develop-
ment.
375 FALL, 1991