12-Self Congruity.qxd


The decision to buy certain products and brands depends on a

number of factors; some social, and some personal. In this

report, we explore the potential relationship between self image,

reference group influence, and consumer behaviour. 

A well-known distinction in the literature on the self is drawn

between the actual self (how a person perceives him/herself) and

the ideal self ( how a person would like to perceive him/herself)

(e.g. Belch & Landon, 1977). From marketing and consumer

behaviour perspectives, self-image is strongly influenced by

social environment. Bearden, Netemeyer & Teel (1989) used the

term “normative influence” to indicate the attempt to conform

to the positive expectations of self and others in order to gain

approval and avoid rejection. 

One hundred and seven students at the University of Cape Town,

South Africa completed a questionnaire containing 29 bipolar

dimensions (e.g. successful - unsuccessful) from which an actual

self - ideal self incongruity score was calculated for each

individual (Graeff, 1996). Respondents also were asked to

indicate, on a sliding scale, the percentage of their friends who

owned the same brand of athletic/sport shoes as they do

(consumer behavior). Finally, they completed Bearden,

Netemeyer and Teel’s (1989) questionnaire to measure reference

group influence, that delivered three scores: normative (the

conformity to the positive expectations of self and others in

order to gain approval and avoid rejection), informational (based

on the desire to make informed decisions), and overall

susceptibility to interpersonal influence.

Firstly, individuals with high incongruence between actual self

and ideal self were expected to be more likely to be influenced

by their reference group. This was confirmed by a significant

correlation between the congruence score and the overall

reference group influence score (r = .29; p = .003). The

correlation between the congruity score and the normative

influence score also was significant (r = .35; p = .001), but the

correlation between the discrepancy score and informational

influence was not (r = .10; p = .33). In other words, an individual

with high incongruence between actual and ideal self was more

likely to be susceptible to normative influence from others, but

this was not the case with regard to informational influence.

Secondly, the relationship between self congruity and the

percentage of friends who buy the same product brand, was

confirmed [F(2,96) = 3.75; p = .04). Post-hoc Tukey HSD analyses

showed that the group with high congruity scores had fewer

friends (Mean = 31.8%) owning the same brand of athletic shoes

than the group with medium congruity scores (Mean = 49.3%). 

Thirdly, the variable “susceptibilit y to reference group

influence” was related to the percentage of friends who buy the

same brand as the individual [F(2,101) = 3.55; p = .03).

Participants with high reference group influence have a higher

percentage of friends owning the same brand (Mean = 46.9%)

than the low reference group has (Mean = 30.3%). 

The results support the notion that the more incongruity an

individual experiences, the more this individual is influenced by

others when making product/ brand choices. This relationship

also held for normative influence. In other words people with

high self incongruity have a stronger tendency to conform to the

expectations of others than people with less. It seems reasonable

to assume that incongruity between actual and ideal self leads to

more reference group influence due to a stronger need for social

feedback. Because of the symbolic value of certain products and

brands, this association can be obtained through buying the same

products and brands as positively evaluated group members. 

Results contradicted the hypothesis that the percentage of

friends who own the same brand would be higher for individuals

with high congruity scores. In retrospect, it is possible that the

operational definition of the variable “consumer behavior” in

terms of “percentage of friends who own the same brand” was

less than perfect. Nevertheless, we believe the results of this

study are promising, and fit in reasonably well with what we

know about the relationship between these variables. 

REFERENCES

Bearden, W., Netemeyer, R.G. & Teel, J.E. (1989). Measurement of

consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal

of Consumer Research, 15, 473-481.

Belch, G.E. & Landon, E.L. (1977). Discriminant validity of a

product-anchored self-concept measure. Journal of Marketing

Research, 14, 252-256.

Graeff, T.R. (1996). Image congruence effects on product

evaluation: The role of self-monitoring and public/private

consumption. Psychology and Marketing, 13, 481-499.

BARBARA VAN DER GIESSEN

NICOLE RIJKEN
University of Amsterdam

the Netherlands

JOHANN LOUW
University of Cape Town

South Africa

Brief Research Note:

SELF CONGRUITY, REFERENCE GROUPS, 

AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

99

SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2004, 30 (1), 99

SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2004, 30 (1), 99