Print Email Download

Paid Writing Services

More Free Content

Get Your Own Essay

Order Now

Instant Price

Search for an Essay


Self Brand Congruity On Purchase Decisions Marketing Essay

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to test whether purchase decision of sports equipment amongst consumers is influenced by and in congruence with the Perceived Brand Personality and Self Concept of the person.

Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was administered on the web. After filling up the self concept scale, the respondents were shown the advertisements of the brands before they filled up the Brand personality scales for the respective brands.

Findings – Correlation is found to exist between self-concept and perceived brand personality of sportswear brands for consumers of sports wear

Research limitations/implications – The sample consisting mainly of students may have introduced a bias of greater homogeneity of perceptions of self than might exist for a broader based population. The three branded products selected for the test limit the general applicability of the results.

Practical implications – The study can be useful to Marketers and Advertisers to understand the consumer behaviour in India towards sportswear and equipments. Thus, it will help them segment the market better and develop a brand image congruent to the self concept of the target market.

Originality/value – Establishing congruence of Self Concept with Brand Personality for sportswear and equipment has not been done earlier in the Indian Context.

Keywords – Self concept, Brand Personality, Self Brand congruence, Self image congruence, Sportswear, India

Paper type – Research paper

INTRODUCTION

Marketers and advertisers have recognized that products as well as services have symbolic images. These images are often more important than even the actual physical attributes and characteristics, to a product’s success (Aaker, 1991; Triplett, 1994). Marketers have thus tried creating images for their brands so that they are positioned to fit a distinct market segment occupied by no other brand. They aim at creating a brand image that is in congruence with the self-image of the target consumers (Aaker and Biehl, 1993; Kapferer, 1992)

This research has been done to test the relationship between consumers' self-concepts and relevant aspects of their consumer behaviour with the perception of brand personality that they have with respect to three brands of sportswear. The congruence between these two aspects has been studied.

Self-brand congruity for the purpose of the paper means the congruity that may exist between the self image of a person and the brand personality of the product which thus affects or does not affect the purchase decision of the consumer. This term, though almost similar in meaning to self-image congruity, is more specific and conveys the idea more conspicuously.

It is a well known fact that consumer products have significance that goes beyond their utilitarian, functional and commercial value (Czikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Levy, 1959; Mick, 1986). Bhat and Reddy (1998) have said that brands have both functional as well as symbolic meaning for customers.

Onkvisit and Shaw (1987) suggested that “self-concept is significant and relevant to the study of consumer behaviour as many purchases made by consumers are directly influenced by the image individuals have of themselves.” This view has been reinforced by a number of other researchers (for example Feinberg et al., 1992; Schwer and Daneshvary, 1995; Sirgy and Ericksen, 1992).

Literature Review

Self concept may be defined as “the totality of one’s thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object.” (Sirgy, 1982; Wily,1961). The self concept is a cognitive structure which in turn is associated with many emotions and feelings. It is also postulated that self concept is the knowledge of oneself which includes the driving thrust of other behaviours. (Zinkham and Hong, 1991). Grubb and Grathwohl (1967), building upon the theory of individual self enhancement (Rogers,1951) , proposed that self concept is formed in an interaction process between an individual and the people around him, and the individual shall strive to enhance the self concept in due course of the process.

Traditionally, it was assumed that a person has a stable set of personality traits and therefore he or she should behave in a similar fashion across various contexts (Aaker, 1999; Sirgy, 1982). The above assumption has been challenged at various points of time in the last couple of years. Individuals can have multiple selves (Markus and Kunda, 1986; Markus and Nurius, 1986) where in they act varyingly with different customers and under various situations. The basic idea behind this is that different personality traits can be accessed differently in different situations (Aaker, 1999; Markus and Kunda, 1986).

Consumer behavior identifies Self Concept as a multidimensional concept consisting of the following five components: the ideal self, the apparent self, the social self, the perceived self and the actual self (Burns, 1979; Markins, 1979; Rosenberg, 1979 and Sirgy 1981,1982,1986 ). The various concepts are described by Markins (1979) at length. Each of them is described as “ the perceived self is how one sees oneself; the social self is how a person thinks others perceive them; the ideal self is the model person one aspires to be; and the apparent self being how the people actually see the person. The actual self, hence, is the composite of all the aforementioned self concepts.”

The multidimensional self concept, as explained above, could be used to explain an individual’s behavior with reference to reference groups, salespersons and competing brands. This, in turn, could be utilized by marketers to design and subsequently tweak their marketing campaigns to cater to the target segments classified as per their self concepts.

The aforementioned point was substantiated by a number of studies conducted over the years. Schiffman and Kanuk (2000) proposed that the one’s self perceptions are closely related to one’s personality in the sense that the individual tends to buy brands whose personalities closely correspond to individual’s own self images. Consumers tend to purchase brands whose personalities are perceived to be congruent with one’s own personality (Aaker, 1999; Kassarjian, 1971; Sirgy, 1982).

Brand Personality

Aaker (1997) defines Brand Personality as “the set of human characteristics that consumers associate with a brand.” Brand personality, by means of the traits associated with it, provides the consumer additional reasons to connect with a brand (Keller, 1998). Brand Personality provides an identity for consumers that conveys symbolic meaning for themselves and to others (Holman, 1981; Solomon, 1983). Aaker used the “Big Five” Personality Model to come up with a framework that consisted of five brand personality dimensions. These dimensions were: sincerity (wholesome, honest, down to earth) , excitement (exciting, adventurous, daring) , competence (intelligent, confident), sophistication (charming, glamorous, smooth), and ruggedness ( strong, masculine).

The NK Malhotra Scale (1981) also supports the measurement of the brand personality by means of measuring the product concepts.

To the extent that different brands can develop different personalities, they can be differentiated in the minds of the consumer and subsequently, the choice preferences of the customer can be altered (Freling and Forbes, 2005; Crask and Laskey, 1990). It was McCracken (1986) who went on to suggest that consumers might search for brands whose personalities match their own self concept.

Brand Personality in sport has become a hot topic in the last few years ( Gladden and Funk, 2002; Gladden and Milne, 1999; Parent and Seguin, 2008). In addition to concentrating primarily on the athlete’s personality, many studies have focused on the development of Brand Personality for a lot of sports brands or equipments (Gladden and Funk, 2002; Gladden and Milne, 1999; Parent and Seguin, 2008).

Brand Personality in Sport is affected by a variety of factors including : packaging, distribution, communication strategies (Gwin & Gwin, 2003), consumer interaction with the brand (2005) etc.

All the aforementioned strategies have to be taken into mind before designing a marketing campaign for sports goods or sportswear.

Self – Image Congruity

Self congruity indicates the degree of similarity between a consumer’s self image or self concept and that of a brand. It is the degree of consistency between the self image and the brand image (Sirgy, 1992).

The significance of self-concept lies in the fact that in a lot of cases what a consumer buys is largely influenced by the image or concept that the consumer has of himself or herself( Zinkham and Hong, 1991). The consumers, in effect, use products to display their self concepts to themselves (Sirgy, 1982; Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988).

Since purchase and consumption are good enough media of self-expression, therefore consumers put in an effort to purchase and consume products whose image matches those of theirs which results in Self image Product image congruity , better known as “Self-image congruity”.

Congruency impacts are desirable as they affect a consumer’s self image in a positive manner. On the other hand, inconsistencies and incongruities are likely to result in the feeling of inadequacy and dissatisfaction with the choices made (Johar and Sirgy, 1991; and Sirgy and Su, 1992). The above study has been followed by various studies that substantiate the aforementioned postulates. Previously conducted researches indicate that self – image congruity can influence consumer’s purchase intentions and their final purchase decisions (Ericksen, 1996; Mehta, 1999). Ericksen (1996), in a study conducted for a European automobile manufacturer, figured out that a relationship did exist between Self image Congruity and the final product purchased.

Products that are conspicuous in nature and require a strong brand image / personality might lend heavily to the self concept (Mehta, 1999; Zinkham and Hong, 1991). However, the above assumption made is not a given across all product categories. The self image congruity theory has been tested across various product categories. Some of these product categories include : shoes, car, clothing, beer etc.

Measurement of Self Concept

Traditionally, the self concept could be measured by using the semantic differential scale or Likert type scale. (Malhotra, 1981; Sirgy et. al 1997; Wylie 1981). The self concept of the individual using the given Likert scale is obtained. Similarly, the individual’s perception of the Brand Personality is obtained by asking him to rate the Brand on certain parameters. By comparing the two scores, the gaps or matches between the person’s self concept and his or her perception of the brand personality.

The NK Malhotra scale was developed in 1981 to measure self concepts, product concepts and person concepts. The scale was developed on certain sound theoretical considerations which were obtained directly from the work of Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957). The author selected a semantic differential scale on the reference made in a study which read “ the semantic differential scale has enjoyed a popularity in market research that is unmatched by any other psychological scaling process”( Green and Tull 1978, p. 191). An initial pool of 70 items was developed to measure the self concept which was shortened down to 27 items after independent evaluations by 4 judges. After conducting surveys with two samples of 167 students and 187 students each regarding self concepts and automobiles and self concepts and actors respectively, a factor analysis was conducted on the 27 items. This was followed by a cluster analysis and subsequently a regression analysis to fit these 27 items into a reduced multi-dimensional scale. At the end of it, a scale of 15 items was obtained which came to be known as the NK Malhotra scale.

However, Sirgy et al. 1997 was critical of the traditional methods to compute the self concept and brand personality. The critiques included:

The usage of discrepancy scores

The possible use of irrelevant images

The probable use of compensatory decision rule

Sirgy et .al, 1997 therefore subsequently proposed an alternative method to evaluate the individual’s self concept. The alternate method computed the self-image congruence directly rather than indirectly measuring it through the use of product user images and self images. The predictive validity of the new method conducted under six different surveys provided significant support for the relatively higher predictiveness of the new method over the older one.

HYPOTHESES

H1: There is correlation between Self Image and Brand Personality

H2: The congruity between Self Image and Brand Personality influences buying behaviour

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In conducting this research, it was necessary to find physically equivalent products with different brand names. This situation was found to pertain in the sportswear brands which were more or less identical in design and usage but were offered to the customers under different brand names. The three brands used were Nike, Reebok and Adidas.

Sample

The population used for the research consisted of post graduate students who had purchased one of these brands at least once in the past six months.

The questionnaire was floated on the web. After filling up the self concept scale, the respondents were shown the advertisements of the brands before they filled up the Brand personality scales for the respective brands.

A total of 168 useful responses were received. All responses were used for the purposes of data analysis.

The research instrument included 15 traits for each of the four parameters being measured, viz. self-concept and the brand personality for the three brands taken for the study. All of these were scored on scales of one to seven.

In the initial phase, respondents were asked to rate themselves on the scale. Then, they were shown the advertisements of each of the three brands which were part of the study, and the respondents were asked to rate each brand on the scale, considering the brands as persons.

After a time gap, respondents were questioned about their choice among the three brands if they would be making a purchase decision, and their responses were recorded.

ANALYSIS

The analysis on the collected data was done in four stages:

Factor Analysis was conducted on the 15 items of the scale for all the four parameters under measurement, namely Self-Concept and Brand Personality for the three brands to find out the factors

Canonical Correlation was performed between the self-concept factors and the brand personality factors to identify which self-concept factors are related to which of the brand personality factors

The responses were tested for Congruence with respect to each brand with the respondent’s self concept

Finally, Logistic Regression was performed to gauge the impact of self-brand congruity on purchase decisions

The scale designed by Naresh K. Malhotra, which is used for measuring self-concept and brand personality, is a 15-point scale. The 15 points constituting the scale are as below:

Rugged – Delicate

Excitable – Calm

Uncomfortable- Comfortable

Dominating - Submissive

Thrifty – Indulgent

Pleasant – Unpleasant

Contemporary – Non-Contemporary

Organized – Unorganized

Rational –Emotional

Youthful – Mature

Formal – Informal

Orthodox – Liberal

Complex – Simple

Colourless – Colourful

Modest –Vain

EFA (Exploratory factor analysis)

EFA is used to identify items that are correlated with each other and thus identifying items for data reduction. The sample size was 168 and SPSS was used for EFA. Varimax Rotation was used.

RESULTS of EFA

The results of Factor Analysis are as below:

For Self-Concept measurement:

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1

2

3

SCF1

-.005

.808

.147

SCF2

-.816

-.064

.211

SCF3

.794

.063

.031

SCF6

.705

.336

.004

SCF9

.210

.743

.147

SCF11

.092

-.019

-.081

SCF12

.025

-.072

.798

SCF13

.139

-.131

-.673

SCF14

-.219

-.727

.223

For Brand Personality of the brand Nike:

Component

1

2

Cumf1

-.113

.223

Cumf3

-.316

.352

Cumf5

-.211

.836

Cumf6

-.230

.529

Cumf7

.128

.784

Cumf9

-.646

.311

Cumf10

-.119

.531

Cumf11

.728

-.007

Cumf12

.740

-.148

Cumf13

.145

-.234

Cumf14

.709

-.019

For Brand Personality of the brand Adidas:

Component

1

2

3

AD1

-.147

-.086

.664

AD3

.191

-.041

.749

AD4

-.107

.104

-.137

AD5

.946

-.160

.097

AD6

.946

-.160

.097

AD7

.387

-.014

.059

AD9

.182

-.714

.163

AD10

.351

-.013

.626

AD11

-.282

.633

-.010

AD12

-.063

.735

.134

AD14

.152

.744

-.380

For Brand Personality of the brand Reebok:

Component

1

2

R1

.366

-.114

R4

.031

.673

R5

.849

-.072

R6

.279

-.244

R7

.856

.200

R11

.073

.717

R13

-.322

.236

R14

-.051

.799

Canonical correlation

Next step was canonical correlation. Canonical correlation is the correlation between two sets of variables. One of these sets is covariate i.e. independent while other set is dependent. Canonical correlation can be used in many-to-many relationships unlike multiple regression and hence is quite useful in study involving human behaviour where the variables have many causes and many effects.

In our study, though the scale was same while measuring self concept as well as measuring perceived brand personality of the three brands involved, it was used in different contexts and hence we wanted to establish correlation between the two sets of variables involved. We analyzed correlation of self concept with brand personality of each of the three brands separately. The results were as follows:

Canonical correlation between Self concept and perceived brand personality of Nike :

The important results obtained were as follows:

Test Name

 Value

 Approx. F

 Hypoth. DF

 Error DF

Sig. of F 

Wilks

 .03974

 5.09515

 117.00

 1104.67

 .000

Along with Wilk’s Lambda results for few other tests like Pillai’s, Hoteling’s and Roy’s were produced in SPSS, however Wilk’s Lambda is the most common method of analysis. The significance of F (p-value) is shown only up to 3 decimals and we can see that it is less than .05 implying that the null hypothesis is rejected and thus we can say that a correlation exists between the two sets of variables. However, we can’t interpret the magnitude of correlation from these results and hence we will look into some additional results.

Eigenvalues and Canonical Correlations

Root No. Eigenvalue Pct. Cum. Pct. Canon Cor. Sq. Cor

1 1.14476 25.99836 25.99836 .73058 .53375

2 1.04607 23.75700 49.75536 .71502 .51126

3 1.01838 23.12809 72.88344 .71032 .50455

4 .44604 10.12977 83.01321 .55539 .30845

5 .32992 7.49268 90.50589 .49807 .24807

6 .20079 4.56005 95.06594 .40892 .16721

7 .12439 2.82507 97.89100 .33261 .11063

8 .07704 1.74961 99.64061 .26745 .07153

9 .01582 .35939 100.00000 .12481 .01558

Here the root no. represents the canonical function and there would be as many functions as there are variables in smaller set which is 9 here in case of predictor set i.e. set of variables in self concept. The highlighted 3 rows are the most significant as the first 3 functions we see explain reasonable amount of variance within their functions.( 53.37%,51.12% and 50.45% respectively). Even functions 4 & 5 have reasonable values of squared correlation. (30.84% and 24.8%). Here there is no direct way of testing each function separately instead they are tested in hierarchical fashion i.e. first function 1 to 9, then function 2 to9 and so on. The final functions are often weak and are not that significant.

Next we will see the correlation between dependent and canonical variables and correlation between covariate and canonical variable to establish relationship between the two sets of variables. (We will be doing this for function 1 and 2 only)

Note: For details about all the variable abbreviations used in canonical correlation, view appendix. The concerned variables important for analysis have been explained in result and interpretation section for each brand.

Correlations between DEPENDENT and canonical variables

Function

Variable 1 2

NF1 .34068 -.21506

NF2 -.24706 -.55803

NF3 -.08692 .34345

NF4 -.07453 -.20539

NF5 .31850 .44634

NF6 .48801 -.25030

NF7 .43841 .19583

NF10 -.16064 .01503

NF11 -.07411 -.09405

NF12 -.05688 -.58835

NF13 -.61180 -.21632

NF14 -.05226 -.58495

NF15 -.19784 .00495

Structured coefficients above the value of .45 are emphasized here. (hence shown in bold above and hereafter). We will now be looking at similar structured coefficients for predictor variables and finally will establish relationship between the two sets for the brand Nike.

Correlations between COVARIATES and canonical variables

Function

Covariate 1 2

SPF1 .44324 -.22463

SPF2 -.36539 -.32056

SPF3 .57424 .13014

SPF6 .67345 .00658

SPF9 .53882 -.59274

SPF11 .41887 .21475

SPF12 -.38726 -.05687

SPF13 -.19134 -.40352

SPF14 -.47597 -.21490

Result and Interpretation:

We observe that for function 1, NF13 ( complex-simple) was the primary dependent variable while SPF6 ( contemporary-noncontemporary) was the dominant predictor variable. Negative value for NF13 and positive value for SPF6 implies there is inverse relationship.

A major result which we can conclude from this is respondents who viewed themselves as contemporary, perceived Nike as simple brand while those who viewed themselves as non-contemporary viewed Nike as complex brand.

Apart from this dominant variable, there are secondary variables which showed that those who viewed themselves as contemporary perceived Nike as contemporary. (relation between NF6 and SPF6- direct relation).

Similarly we can do analysis for function 2, but here function 1 is most important as it is explaining 53% of variance already.

After having explained canonical correlation procedure in detail for Nike we will just focus on results and interpretation for Adidas and Reebok. The procedure and methodology ofcourse remains the same.

Canonical correlation between Self concept and perceived brand personality of Adidas :

Test Name

 Value

 Approx. F

 Hypoth. DF

 Error DF

Sig. of F 

Wilks

 .03814

 7.01778

 90.00

 1020.83

 .000

Eigenvalues and Canonical Correlations

 

 

Root No. Eigenvalue Pct. Cum. Pct. Canon Cor. Sq. Cor

1 1.45383 31.12585 31.12585 .76972 .59247

2 1.37175 29.36863 60.49448 .76051 .57837

3 .76189 16.31171 76.80619 .65759 .43243

4 .47091 10.08203 86.88822 .56582 .32015

5 .33323 7.13431 94.02253 .49994 .24994

6 .15569 3.33318 97.35571 .36703 .13471

7 .06015 1.28773 98.64344 .23819 .05673

8 .03813 .81633 99.45977 .19165 .03673

9 .02523 .54023 100.00000 .15688 .02461

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlations between DEPENDENT and canonical variables

Function No.

Variable 1 2

AF1 .23568 .58707

AF3 .53498 -.21399

AF4 .26208 .17315

AF5 .04233 .25354

AF7 -.01386 .20354

AF9 .20822 .09973

AF10 -.19976 .09118

AF11 -.08510 .24071

AF12 -.38568 -.46187

AF14 -.72613 .12300

Correlations between COVARIATES and canonical variables

Covariate 1 2

SPF1 .13449 .53805

SPF2 -.40742 -.29325

SPF3 .21251 .25056

SPF6 .92235 .10881

SPF9 .22708 .68236

SPF11 .17285 .11867

SPF12 -.22835 -.24360

SPF13 .07747 -.08953

SPF14 -.22155 -.79739

Result and Interpretation

The significance of F in Wilks lambda and the squared correlation in Eigen value table shows that correlation exists between self concept and perceived brand personality.

SPF6 i.e. contemporary-non-contemporary came out to be the most dominating predictable variable in function 1. It has direct relationship with dependent variable AF3 (dominating-submissive) and inverse relationship with AF14 (colourless-colurful).

Thus we can conclude that those who view themselves as contemporary perceived Adidas as dominating and colourful.

Similar analysis can be done on function 2 but here again function 1 explains most of the variance and hence is given the priority in interpretation.

Canonical correlation between Self concept and perceived brand personality of Reebok :

Test Name

 Value

 Approx. F

 Hypoth. DF

 Error DF

Sig. of F 

Wilks

.04145

 8.84436

 72.00

 926.08

 .000

Eigenvalues and Canonical Correlations

 

 

Root No. Eigenvalue Pct. Cum. Pct. Canon Cor. Sq. Cor

1 2.76750 53.38006 53.38006 .85707 .73457

2 .98443 18.98784 72.36790 .70433 .49608

3 .78155 15.07477 87.44267 .66234 .43869

4 .25180 4.85678 92.29945 .44850 .20115

5 .20719 3.99636 96.29581 .41428 .17163

6 .14785 2.85176 99.14757 .35890 .12881

7 .04415 .85149 99.99906 .20562 .04228

8 .00005 .00094 100.00000 .00698 .00005

Correlations between DEPENDENT and canonical variables

Function No.

Variable 1 2

RF1 .20689 -.28800

RF4 .24627 .47619

RF5 .04741 -.45784

RF6 -.27067 .23955

RF7 .40571 -.21959

RF11 .51645 .43659

RF13 -.19108 .22969

RF14 .83414 .27238

Correlations between COVARIATES and canonical variables

Function No.

Covariate 1 2

SPF1 .14842 -.23339

SPF2 .09861 .57714

SPF3 .44594 -.30822

SPF6 -.34575 -.11950

SPF9 -.15437 -.18270

SPF11 .66461 .41903

SPF12 .04396 .07343

SPF13 -.09267 .17924

SPF14 -.11675 .64681

Result and Interpretation

The significance of F in Wilks lambda and the squared correlation in Eigen value table shows that correlation exists between self concept and perceived brand personality.

The most important result for Reebok is for function 1 as it explains 73% of variance. Here we observe a direct relationship between SPF11 (formal-informal) and RF14 (colourless-colourful). We can conclude that those respondents who see themselves as formal perceive Reebok as colourless and those who view themselves as informal perceive Reebok as colourful.

The secondary interpretation is a direct relationship between SPF11 and RF11 which means respondents who view themselves as formal perceive Reebok as formal and those who view themselves as informal perceive Reebok as informal.

Arithmetic operations to test the congruity

After canonical correlation, our next objective was to test congruity of each respondent with each factor. This analysis was done in Microsoft excel for two reasons 1) comparative ease in doing arithmetic operations such as median 2) our methodology involved two-step recoding which would have been cumbersome to do in SPSS

The arithmetic operations were as follows:

Step1) Find out the median for each factor for each of Self-concept, Nike, Adidas and Reebok

Step2) For each factor find out if respondent lies on same side of median for concerned brand.

Step3) If respondent lies on same side, the respondent has self-image congruity for that factor for that brand.

Step4) Carry out step2 ans step3 for all factors and for all brands.

Step5) Recode Congruity as ‘1’ and incongruity as ‘2’

Step6) Recode Nike as ‘1’, Adidas as ‘2’ and Reebok as ‘3’.

After this the data was copied in SPSS to do logistic regression. Further recoding using SPSS was done for each brand where if a particular respondent has chosen Nike, then for its variable, he would have value 1 else 0. Thus 3 variables were obtained after recoding: BPNike(Brand personality-Nike), BPA (brand personality-adidas) and BPR (brand personality-reebok). In the end, logistic regression was done for each brand.

Logisitc regression

In our case, multinomial logistic regression was carried out for each of the dependent variable, BPNike, BPA and BPR stated above. Please note that in BPNike, BPR and BPA we have stored respondents who have chosen that brand and those who haven’t by recoding into ‘1’ and ‘0’.

The results were as follows:

Nike:

Parameter Estimates

BPNike

 

B

Std. Error

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lower Bound

 

Intercept

-1.45233

1.482104

0.960225

1

0.32713

 

 

 

SN1

-0.05782

0.377268

0.023485

1

0.878202

0.943824

0.450567

 

SN3

0.302292

0.363335

0.692212

1

0.405413

1.352957

0.663762

 

SN5

0.307141

0.375314

0.66971

1

0.413153

1.359533

0.651511

 

SN6

0.186969

0.365465

0.261728

1

0.608936

1.20559

0.589

 

SN7

0.375267

0.009006

1

0.924393

1.036255

0.496637

 

SN9

0.548287

0.370102

2.194691

1

0.138487

1.730286

0.837697

 

SN10

0.030628

0.35794

0.007322

1

0.931811

1.031101

0.511237

 

SN11

0.160792

0.347876

0.213638

1

0.64393

1.174441

0.593907

 

SN12

0.718166

0.371583

3.735419

1

0.05327

2.050669

0.989929

 

SN13

-0.35832

0.356268

1.011559

1

0.31453

0.698849

0.347638

 

SN14

-0.83515

0.349706

5.703271

1

0.016933

0.433809

0.218589

Result and Interpretation:

From the results we can’t conclude that the buying behaviour of Nike was strongly impacted by the brand personality attributes and respondent’s self-image congruity. Only SN14 that is perception of brand Nike as (colourless-colourful) had some impact on purchase behaviour of respondents.

Adidas:

Parameter Estimates

BPA

 

B

Std. Error

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lower Bound

 

Intercept

-4.56844

2.183464

4.377668

1

0.036413

 

 

 

AN1

0.008845

0.410522

0.000464

1

0.98281

1.008884

0.451237

 

AN3

0.528877

0.433618

1.487631

1

0.222584

1.697026

0.725424

 

AN4

2.591741

0.635918

16.61042

1

4.59E-05

13.353

3.839585

 

AN5

0.875548

0.473999

3.411972

1

0.064725

2.40019

0.947932

 

AN6

0.472563

2.486671

1

0.114814

0.474643

0.187984

 

AN7

1.087561

0.415534

6.850056

1

0.008864

2.967028

1.31407

 

AN9

1.059727

0.475623

4.964352

1

0.025875

2.885582

1.136011

 

AN10

-0.70752

0.437562

2.614541

1

0.105888

0.492866

0.209062

 

AN11

-0.27065

0.418109

0.419021

1

0.517426

0.762884

0.336174

 

AN12

-0.24835

0.436628

0.323536

1

0.569491

0.780083

0.331499

 

AN14

-0.10447

0.452812

0.053233

1

0.81753

0.900798

0.370845

Result and Interpretation:

In case of Adidas, there was strong impact of brand personality attributes and self-image congruity on buying behaviour of respondents who preferred Adidas. The factors which affected the most were AN4 (thrifty-indulgent), AN7 (organized-unorganized) and AN9 (youthful-mature). That is customer who found self-congruence with Adidas on factors such as spending habits, traits such as organized-unorganized and maturity levels were most likely to buy Adidas.

Reebok:

Parameter Estimates

BPR

 

B

Std. Error

Wald

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lower Bound

 

Intercept

-8.14435

3.105038

6.879844

1

0.008717

 

 

 

RS1

-1.09401

0.505265

4.688191

1

0.030371

0.334871

0.124393

 

RS4

2.480285

0.760907

10.62526

1

0.001116

11.94467

2.688368

 

RS5

0.747156

0.516665

2.091243

1

0.148145

2.110988

0.766831

 

RS6

1.282353

0.692408

3.429972

1

0.064023

3.605112

0.927983

 

RS7

0.909054

13.2517

1

0.000272

27.36372

4.60667

 

RS11

-0.73985

0.571498

1.675938

1

0.195465

0.477185

0.155678

 

RS13

0.109592

0.488669

0.050295

1

0.82255

1.115823

0.428193

 

RS14

1.513422

0.725566

4.350767

1

0.036992

4.542247

1.095639

Result an Interpretation:

In case of Reebok, there was strong impact of brand personality attributes and self-image congruity on buying behaviour of respondents who preferred Reebok. The factors which affected the most were RS1(excitable-calm), RS4 (thrifty-indulgent), RS7 (organized-unorganized) and RS14 (colurless-colurful). That is customer who found self-congruence with Reebok on factors such as excitement level, spending habits, traits such as organized-unorganized and way of living were most likely to buy Reebok.

Summary of overall results

Correlation (obtained from canonical correlation results)

There is strong correlation between self-concept and brand personality for each of the 3 brands. The factors deferred in case of each brand. For Nike, it was contemporariness of self and complexity of brand personality which affected the correlation most. For Adidas, it was between contemporariness of self with dominating perception of brand while for Reebok it was correlation between formality in nature of self with perceived colurfulness of brand personality.

Buying behaviour

There is strong impact of certain brand personality attributes on buying behaviour of customers. This however was very prominent in case of Adidas and Reebok. Nike didn’t show any such results. For Adidas it was factors such as spending habits, traits such as organized-unorganized and maturity levels which were most likely to result in purchase decision of buying Adidas. For Reebok, it was factors such as excitement level, spending habits, traits such as organized-unorganized and way of living which were most likely to result in purchase decision of buying Reebok.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

Congruence studies have been performed earlier in the west, but this study gives an insight of the impact of congruity on purchase decisions in an Indian context. From the marketers’ perspective, the results of this study have multiple ramifications.

It will help marketers segment the market and target their promotions effectively. It also reveals which traits play a more important role in influencing purchase decisions in case of each brand. Thus, it identifies the “differentiating attributes” in terms of creating consumer perception for each brand. Similarly, which parameters do not create an impact strong enough to influence purchase decisions can also be identified.

Hence, the study can also serve to gauge the impact of promotional campaigns.

Finally, this study helps in understanding the behavioural aspect of consumers of sports equipments.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of this study was that it relied on a convenience sample of university students, not necessarily representative of all university students or the general population. The sample was also skewed with more men than women. Results of this study should not be generalized beyond the group of students in the sample.

The use of students may have introduced a bias of greater homogeneity of perceptions of self than might exist for a broader based population. The three branded products selected for the test limited the general applicability of the results.

The scale used is the N.K. Malhotra scale developed in 1981. Its relevance in the present day is an issue of contention.

Print Email Download

Share This Essay

Did you find this essay useful? Share this essay with your friends and you could win £20 worth of Amazon vouchers. One winner chosen at random each month.

Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:

Request the removal of this essay.


More from UK Essays

Need help with your essay?

We offer a bespoke essay writing service and can produce an essay to your exact requirements, written by one of our expert academic writing team. Simply click on the button below to order your essay, you will see an instant price based on your specific needs before the order is processed:

Order an Essay - via our secure order system!