Applied Research Quality Life (2007) 2:289304

DOI 10.1007/s11482-008-9043-9

Consumer Well-Being (CWB): The Effects of Self-Image

Congruence, Brand-Community Belongingness,
Brand Loyalty, and Consumption Recency
Stephan Grzeskowiak & M. Joseph Sirgy

Received: 20 November 2007 / Accepted: 21 April 2008 /

Published online: 15 May 2008
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V./
The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) 2008

Abstract Consumer well-being (CWB) refers to the extent to which a particular

consumer good or service creates an overall perception of the quality-of-life impact
of that product. We developed a model that posits that CWB related to a specific
product is heavily influenced by self-image congruence and brand-community
belongingness. Self-image congruence is also hypothesized to influence CWB
moderated by brand loyalty. Similarly, brand-community belongingness is hypothesized to influence CWB moderated by consumption recency. Our survey data of
275 undergraduate students reporting on their coffee consumption showed the
following: (1) CWB was significantly predicted by brand loyalty and brandcommunity belongingness; (2) the effect of brand loyalty on CWB was moderated
by self-image congruence, and (3) the effect of brand-community belongingness was
moderated by consumption recency.
Keywords Consumer well-being . Consumer satisfaction . Consumer welfare .
Quality of life . Marketing and quality of life . Well-being marketing .
Self-image congruence . Brand community belongingness
The role of marketing on consumers quality of life has interested many scholars (for
an overview of the literature see Lee and Sirgy 2004; Samli et al. 1987; Sirgy 2001;
Sirgy et al. 2007). Marketing influences consumers quality of life (QOL) because
marketing affects life satisfaction (e.g., Day 1978, 1987; Leelakulthanit et al. 1991).
S. Grzeskowiak (*)
Marketing and Logistics Management, University of Minnesota,
3-150 Carlson School of Management, 321-19th Ave South, Minnapolis, MN 55455, USA
e-mail: grzes008@umn.edu
M. J. Sirgy
Marketing and Virginia Real Estate Research Fellow,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
e-mail: sirgy@vt.edu

290

S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy

Much research devoted to the impact of consumption on consumer life satisfaction

focuses on determinants of consumption behaviors that have intuitively positive (e.g.,
dieting, exercise, etc.) or negative (e.g., smoking, gambling, etc.) consequences.
However, for most products the outcomes of consumption behaviors may be less clear
cut and it is likely that the majority of consumption experiences have both positive and
negative impact on life satisfaction.
Little is known about how everyday products influence consumers QOL. What
are the relevant product-related experiences that marketers need to consider when
designing products that make a positive and a significant difference in the
consumers life? Central to answering this question is the development of concepts,
methods, and measures that capture CWB.
Much of the current research on consumption and well being is based on
consumer satisfaction. Therefore, the first goal of this paper is to make the
distinction between consumer satisfaction and CWB clear to the readers. Our second
goal is make sure that the reader has an appreciation of the various theoretical
models driving research on CWB. We will focus on one particular conceptualization
of CWB, namely perceived QOL impact of a product. We will expose the reader to
the sparse research published in this area and make a case that this construct is
determined by two key variables: self-image congruence (self-congruity for short)
and brand community belongingness. We will develop a theoretical model showing
the influence of self-congruity and brand community belongingness on CWB. We
will also argue that brand loyalty moderates the effect of self-congruity on CWB,
and similarly we will make a case for the moderating effect of consumption recency
on the relationship between brand community belongingness and CWB.

The Distinction Between CWB and Consumer Satisfaction and the Concept
of Perceived Product Quality-of-Life Impact
There is a plethora of research in consumer satisfaction with varied conceptualizations and measures. For a good literature review of this research, the reader may
consult Richard Olivers book (Oliver 1997). For readers who are not very familiar
with the consumer satisfaction literature, however, we will describe one particular
concept (and corresponding measure) that we think is representative of the vast
literature on consumer satisfaction, namely the University of Michigans American
Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI; Fornell 1992; Fornell et al. 1996).
The universitys National Quality Research Center has been measuring national
consumer satisfaction since 1994 (www.theacsi.org). The National Quality Research
Center reports ACSI levels quarterly in manufacturing durables such as automobiles,
personal computers, household appliances and consumer electronics, and e-business.
The ACSI measure is based on the theoretical notion that consumer satisfaction is
determined mostly by perceived value, perceived quality, and customer expectations.
The Center conducts a survey of actual users of major brands in various product
categories. The survey includes questions capturing customer expectations,
perceived quality, value perceptions, satisfaction, customer complaints, and customer
loyalty (Fornell 1992).

Consumer Well-Being (CWB)

291

We view the ACSI measure as being highly representative of consumer

satisfaction conceptualizations and measures. Much of consumer satisfaction
research is guided by the theoretical notion that consumer satisfaction plays a major
role in customer loyalty, repeat purchase behavior, and positive word-of-mouth
communications (e.g., Fornell 1992; Fornell et al. 1996; Szymanski and Henard
2001). Of course, the goal is to enhance customer satisfaction for the purpose of
ensuring higher levels of repeat patronage, ergo sales, market share, and profit.
In contrast, the concept of CWB is inherently guided by a different meta-level
concept, namely the link between consumer satisfaction and quality of life. In other
words, all the conceptualizations and measures of CWB we briefly review in the
following section are grounded on the implicit or explicit assumption that high levels
of CWB leads to higher levels of consumers quality of lifehigher levels of life
satisfaction, overall happiness with life, absence of ill being, greater societal welfare,
and so on.
There are a myriad of conceptualizations of CWB. These include the cost of
living model, the consumption equity model, the quality model, the possession
satisfaction model, the acquisition/possession model, the consumer/product life
cycle model, the community model, the need satisfaction model, the bottom-up
spillover model, the marketers orientation model, the materialism model, the
globalization model, and finally the perceived QOL impact model (see Sirgy et al.
2007, for an overview of this literature). Our study is based on the latter modelthe
perceived QOL impact model.
The perceived QOL impact model posits that CWB, in relation to a particular
product, is a direct function of consumers perception of the impact of the product on
their overall life. That perception of QOL impact of the product is influenced by the
perception of how the product generates satisfaction in a variety of life domains (e.g.,
work life, leisure life, and family life). The perception of satisfaction in the various life
domains, in turn, is influenced by the perceived product benefits and costs within the
respective domains. For example, Sirgy et al. (2006) reported a study that involved the
development of an Internet well-being measure. The Internet well-being measure was
based on the theoretical notion that the perception of the overall impact of the Internet
on users of the Internet is determined by their perceptions of the impact of the Internet
in their life domains such as marketplace, work life, leisure life, social life, education,
community, sensual life, among others. In turn, the perception of impact of the Internet
in a given life domain (e.g., work life) is determined by perceptions of benefits and
costs of the Internet within that domain. The model we develop in this paper is based
on the perceived QOL impact model. With this background, we can now turn to
describing our theoretical model.

Model and Hypotheses

We begin by developing a conceptual definition of CWB at the micro level. Guided
by the perceived QOL impact model, we define CWB as consumers perception of
the extent to which a brand (a consumer good or service) contributes to positive
affect in various life domains creating an overall perception of the quality-of-life
impact of that brand. For example, if consumers were asked: To what extent you

292

S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy

believe that Starbucks Coffee contributes to their overall quality of life? They may
respond by thinking about the extent to which consuming coffee at Starbucks has
helped enhance their quality of life in their social life, their leisure life, their work
life, their physical (sensual) life, etc. The more they perceive that Starbucks Coffee
has made them feel good in various life domains, the more likely they would believe
that Starbucks Coffee does indeed contribute to the overall quality of life.
Based on our definition of CWB, we think there are two important factors we
believe contribute significantly to CWB, namely self-congruity and brandcommunity belongingness. We also hypothesize that the effect of self-congruity on
CWB is moderated by brand loyalty. Furthermore, the effect of brand-community
belongingness on CWB is moderated by consumption recency. Our model is shown
in Fig. 1. We will explain the overall model and the various hypotheses in some
detail in the sections below.
The Effect of Self-Congruity
Consumer motives for purchase and consumption stem in great measure from the
meaning of the consumption act and the value that meaning provides (Levy 1959).
Marketers strive to provide consumers with value by linking specific meanings with
their market offerings. One approach to influence the meaning of products is through
brand value-expressiveness (Park et al. 1986). Brand value-expressiveness is defined
as the extent to which the brand is associated with a user imagethe kind of image
that consumers may compare to their self-image. Much research suggests that
products are more likely to be purchased and consumed if consumers recognize
some convergence between the brand-user image and their own self-image (Sirgy
1982). Starbucks, for example, went to considerable length to design original coffee
houses to re-create the image of coffeehouses of Milan, Italy. Therefore, the branduser image associated with Starbucks is that of the European in style and
mannerism. Consumers who see themselves as European in style and mannerism
(i.e., have an actual self-image of being European in style and mannerism) are
likely to identify with the Starbucks brand. Patronizing Starbucks stores and

Fig. 1 The research model

Brand
Loyalty
H3
Self-Image
Congruence

H1

Brand
Community
Belongingness

H2

CWB

H4
Consumption
Recency

Control Variables
Purchase Amount
Respondent Age
Respondent Gender

Consumer Well-Being (CWB)

293

drinking Starbucks coffee, thus, satisfy their need for self-consistency (Epstein 1980;
Lecky 1945). The need for self-consistency is the need to engage in behaviors
consistent with ones actual self-image. Doing so reinforces ones identity and view
of the world through the self (i.e., self-theory).
Much research has shown that self-congruity (match between the brand-user
image and consumers actual self-image) influences consumers satisfaction
motivation to purchase the brand and remain loyal to that brand (e.g., Sirgy et al.
1997). Satisfaction is a reflection of positive affect in various life domains in which
the brand impacts. Therefore, the perception of the brands QOL impact is most
likely to be directly based on consumers perception of the positive affect that the
brand generated in specific life domains. Thus, we introduce our first hypothesis:
H1: The higher the level of congruence between the brand image and the
consumers self-image, the greater the consumers perception of the brands
impact on his or her QOL.
The Effect of Brand-Community Belongingness
A second approach to generate meaning of products is to develop consumerbrand relationships in which the brand serves as a relationship partner (e.g.,
Fournier 1998) and brand communities form among users of a brand (e.g.,
McAlexander et al. 2002). Central to the meaning people derive from brand
communities are the social relationships that form among its members. Strengthening the ties with members of the brand community allows people to become
associated with the symbolic properties of the group. These associations can then be
transferred from the brand community to the brand user as consumers become part
of the brand community.
Recent research has shown that brand-community belongingness plays a
significant role in brand satisfaction (e.g., Leigh et al. 2006; Muniz and OGuinn
2001; Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Thus, we introduce our second
hypothesis:
H2: The higher a consumers sense of belonging to other brand users, the greater
the consumers perception of the brands impact on his or her QOL.
The Moderation Effect of Brand Loyalty
One can argue that the effect of self-congruity on CWB is strengthened when
consumers become increasingly loyal to the brand. Customer loyalty increases the
use of this brand, which in turn, makes it more likely for the consumer to use the
brand more frequently not in relation to one life domain but several. For example,
customers experience self-congruity with Starbucks Coffee. This experience may
cause them to frequent this establishment more often. The more they frequent the
establishment (because of their social identification with the establishment), the
more likely they experience positive affect intensely, not in one life domain, but
several (leisure life, social life, work life, physical/sensual life, etc.). Thus, CWB is
greatest when customers experience high self-congruity and high brand loyalty,

294

S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy

conjointly. In other words, the contribution of self-congruity is significantly

amplified given high (than low) levels of brand loyalty.
H3: The strength of the effect of self-congruity on CWB is moderated by brand
loyalty. Specifically, the self-congruity is strongest under high than low brand
loyalty conditions.
The Moderation Effect of Consumption Recency
One can argue that the effect of brand-community belongingness on CWB is likely to be
accentuated when consumers have consumed the brand more (than less) recently. The
recency of the consumption experience should moderate the brand-community
belongingness effect. For example, a customer experiences brand-community belongingness with Starbucks Coffee. In other words, that customer feels good interacting with
other Starbucks customers. He feels a sense of community and solidarity with them. The
perceived QOL effect of this sense of community with Starbucks customers should
amplify if he has visited Starbucks more recently than less recently. The more recent his
use of the product (given high brand-community belongingness), the more likely that he
will experience positive affect intensely, not in one life domain, but several (leisure life,
social life, work life, physical/sensual life, etc.). Thus, CWB is greatest when customers
experience high brand-community belongingness and high consumption recency,
conjointly. In other words, the contribution of brand-community belongingness is
significantly amplified given more than less recent brand use.
H4: The strength of the effect of brand-community belongingness on CWB is
moderated by consumption recency. Specifically, the brand-community belongingness effect is strongest under more than less recent consumption.

Method
We will describe the study methods by first describing the data collection and
sampling methods. Then will describe the measures of the models constructs and
how we purified the measures. Finally, we will address the issue of method bias
before reporting the study results.
Data Collection and Sampling
To test our research model (Fig. 1), a 275 coffee shop customers were recruited by
students enrolled in undergraduate business-related courses. Respondents were asked
to report on their last visit to a coffee shop using a web-based survey. Respondents
were provided with a link to the web-based survey and responded within two days of
being contacted. None of the student recruiters participated in the survey.
We chose coffee shops as the product stimulus because coffee is a consumption
good that is typically mass-marketed and our respondents were less likely to use it
for symbolic consumption than other products that are more conspicuous in
consumption. Using a research context that is low on value expressiveness provides

Consumer Well-Being (CWB)

295

a strong test for our research model because the hypothesized relationships are more
likely to be rejected (Popper 1935). If the research model is supported in the context
of a low value-expressive stimulus our results are likely to be robust across a wide
range of product stimuli.
Upon opening the electronic survey, respondents were told that the study
investigates consumers satisfaction with coffee shops and how well coffee shops
meet consumer needs. For answering the survey questions respondents were
instructed to focus and report on experiences related to their last coffee shop visit.
We selected the last visit as unit of analysis for our study for two reasons. First,
probing the last visit was expected to facilitate recall and enhance reliability of the
responses. Second, probing the last visit was likely to produce more variance in the brand
loyalty and consumption recency variable than, for example, asking the respondents
about the coffee shop they visit the most.
Construct Measures
Based on this definition of the constructs in our study we reviewed the literature for
existing scales and developed new scale items where appropriate (Churchill 1979).
The resulting survey instrument consisted of 31 items measuring perceived QOL
impact, brand loyalty, consumption recency, brand-community belongingness, and
self-image congruence. Each measure is described next and a detailed list of scale
items, reliability and discriminant validity coefficients is shown in the Appendix 1.
Perceived QOL Impact Perceived QOL impact in the study context refers to the
respondents perception of the overall positive or negative affect that he or she
experiences in relation to the coffee shop and in connection with salient life
domains. It was measured as follows: Respondents were prompted by the following
question: Does shopping at this coffee shop contribute to your quality of life?
Following this question, respondents were presented with four seven-point Likerttype scales (e.g., This coffee shop satisfies my overall coffee needs). See
Appendix 1.
Brand Loyalty Following Olivers (1999) conceptualization of brand loyalty, our
measure of brand loyalty tapped four dimensions: cognitive, affective, conative,
and action loyalty. Cognitive loyalty tapped actual or imagined better competitive
features or price of the coffee brand (e.g., This coffee shop has high quality
products.). Affective loyalty captures the respondents feelings about the brand
(e.g., I love it.). Conative loyalty refers to actual behavior towards the brand
(e.g., I am a regular at this coffee shop.). Finally, action loyalty measures the
respondents initiative to overcome obstacles for consuming the brand (e.g., I
would wait longer at this coffee shop than at other ones.). Taken together, these
four facets of loyalty were conceptualized to reflect a higher-order factor of brand
loyalty.
Brand-Community Belongingness Our literature review failed to identify a satisfactory measure of consumers belongingness to a consumption community defined by
the brand. We therefore adapted a measure of community cohesiveness used by

296

S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy

policy makers to gauge the health of local communities (The Home Office 2003).
Here, respondents were asked to evaluate the social environment in the coffee shop
and the degree to which they are part of it (e.g., I enjoy being part of the social
activities in this coffee shop). See Appendix 1.
Self-Congruity A brand image is determined not only by the physical characteristics
of the object alone, but by a host of other factors, such as advertising, retail
environment and sales encounters. We therefore developed a measure of selfcongruity in relation to three sources: the typical brand user, the coffee shop, and the
retail personnel. Thus, we asked our respondents whether they could identify with
the people who buy this brand of coffee, the typical person who comes to this
store, and the people who work at this store. All three facets of self-image
congruence were conceptualized to reflect overall congruity between the brand
image and the respondents self-image. Scale items were adapted from direct
measures of self-congruity (Sirgy et al. 1997). See Appendix 1.
Consumption Recency This is the time since the respondents had visited the coffee
shop [in days] they reported about (Hornik 1984). We used days as scale increments
because our pretest indicated that typical respondents visit coffee shops no more than
once a day and often multiple days pass between visits.
Control Variables Although the proposed research model captures the central
mechanisms that drive perceived QOL impact (or CWB), some additional constructs
were included in the study to rule out alternative explanations and enhance the
generalizability of the study findings. We added the amount of money the respondent
had spent in the coffee shop [in $], as well as the gender and age of the respondent.
The purchase price was included to reflect the quantity and quality of the product. It
is conceivable that variations in quality and size of product contribute differently to
the respondents QOL. The respondents age and gender account for potential
differences in the consumers life-style and control for variations in impact that the
product may have on their way of life. Each control variable was allowed to affect
dependent variable (i.e., perceived QOL impact of the product).

Measure Purification and Validation

Following the two-step procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988),
we estimated the measurement model prior to incorporating the structural restrictions
proposed in the research model. The measurement model consisted of 30
measurement items and nine factors. Overall, the model fit the data moderately
well (2239 437:4, p=0.00; GFI=0.89, AGFI=0.85, CFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.06, p
(Close)=0.16). Most items loaded significantly on their respective constructs
providing good support for the convergent validity of the measurement items (see
Appendix 1 for deleted items). In addition, the AMOS-based internal consistency
estimates (composite reliability), and the amount of variance extracted for each
construct in relation to measurement error were found to be far greater than
acceptable threshold levels (Nunnally 1994; Fornell and Larcker 1981).

Consumer Well-Being (CWB)

297

Controlling for Method Bias

The data in this study was gathered from respondents who reported on the constructs
of the research model simultaneously and therefore may be subject to common
method bias. Method variance has been defined as all systematic effects associated
with a given measurement procedure rather than the constructs the measures
represent (Campbell and Fiske 1959). In order to control for method variance we
included a single, latent method factor in the structural research model that was
allowed to influence each observed measure (Podsakoff et al. 2003). This latent
factor partials out error variance that is due to the respondent and systematically
affects responses to all measures in the survey.

Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for the research
variables. The variable means for all 5-point scales are all below 4 (M=2.97) and the
standard deviations for these variables range from 0.72 to 0.98 (M=0.83), indicating
a substantial amount of variance in the responses. Further, the correlations in Table 1
show significant relationships for all hypothesized relationships at the aggregate
level lending cursory support for the overall model and its hypotheses. We used
Fornell and Larkers (1981) criterion to assess discriminant validity. Table 1 shows

Table 1 Correlation matrix and discriminant validity

Variable

Consumer
well-Being
Brand
community
belongingness
Self-image
congruence
Brand loyalty
Consumption
recency
Purchase
amount
Gender
Age
Mean
SD

Consumer
WellBeing

Brand
Community
Belongingness

Self-image
Congruence

Brand
Loyalty

Consumption
Recency

Purchase
Amount

Gender

Age

0.61

0.35

0.13

0.32

0.06

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.59

.53

0.21

0.40

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.36

0.45

0.20

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.57
0.24

0.63
0.01

0.45
0.05

b
0.13

0.02
N/A

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.02

0.10

0.12

0.03

0.07

0.01

N/A

0.00

0.00

0.07
0.03
2.65
0.98

0.01
0.08
2.66
0.83

0.02
0.06
3.28
0.72

0.03
0.05
3.27
0.79

0.03
0.16
5.82
5.6

0.02
0.02
5.13
7.26

N/A
0.06
N/A
N/A

0.00
N/A
20.96
1.75

Numbers below the diagonal represent correlation coefficients

Numbers above the diagonal represent squared correlations
Numbers on the diagonal represent average variance extracted for multi-item measures
Bold numbers show significant at 0.01 level
a
AVE ranges from 0.77 to 0.83 across facets
b
AVE ranges from 0.600.80 across facets

298

S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy

that the smallest AVE exceeds the squared multiple correlations between any pair of
study constructs indicating a satisfactory level of discriminant validity.
Structural Model Results
We selected structural equation modeling to test the research model because it allows
not only for a test of the hypothesized interaction effects but can also be used to
simultaneously control for method bias. Similar to the procedure employed in the
measurement model estimation, we included a method factor as previously
described. This latent factor is allowed to simultaneously influence each observed
measure and partials out systematic variance that is due to the respondent. This
systematic error variance would otherwise confound trait variance in the measure.
Table 2 reports goodness-of-fit indices and standardized parameter estimates for
the structural model. The estimated 2 statistic for the structural model is significant,
which suggests that the
reproduces the sample correlations
 hypothesized model

within sampling error 2392 581:67 . In addition, the Goodness-of-Fit Index
[GFI=0.85], TuckerLewis Index [TLI=.93], the Comparative Fit Index [CFI=.94],
and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA=.05, p (Close)=0.58]
together suggest that the hypothesized structural model provides a good fit to the
data (Bagozzi and Yi 1988).

Table 2 Structural model estimatesa

Hypothesis

Independent variable

Control variables

Purchase amount
Gender
Age

Main effects
H1
H2

Interaction effects
H3
H4
Fit statistics
SMC
2
df
P
GFI
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
P(close)
a
b
c

Regression
coefficientb

t-value

0.01
0.11
0.01

0.16
1.68
0.08

Self-image congruence
Brand community belongingness
Brand loyalty
Consumption recency

0.10
0.34c
0.37
0.15

1.31
3.42
3.38
2.35

Self-image congruence brand loyalty

Brand community belongingness
consumption recency

0.14
0.16

2.21
2.29

0.50
581.67
392
0.00
0.85
0.94
0.93
0.05
0.58

The dependent variable is consumer well-being (CWB)

Standardized coefficients
Bold coefficients are significant at the p<.05 level

Consumer Well-Being (CWB)

299

Turning to the statistical estimates of the hypothesized structural paths, we note

that both self-congruity and brand-community belongingness linking the brand to
perceived QOL impact of the product find some degree of support in our data. First,
our data do not support a direct effect of self-image congruence on CWB [H1]
(=0.10, t=1.31). However, we do find support for [H3], the interaction between
self-congruity and brand loyalty (=0.14, t=2.21). Probing the interaction term
reveals that self-congruity only has a strong, positive effect on CWB when brand
loyalty is high. Under conditions of low brand loyalty, self-congruity does not
appear to impact CWB (see Fig. 2a).
Second, we find support for our hypothesis linking brand-community belongingness to CWB. Brand-community belongingness was found to positively influence
CWB (=0.34, t=3.42) [H2]. Further, the data suggests that this effect becomes
stronger the more the respondent has a recent consumption experience with the
brand [H4]. As hypothesized, the interaction effect between brand-community
belongingness and consumption recency was found to be positive (=0.16, t=
2.29) (see Fig. 2b). Note that consumption recency is measured in terms of the
duration since the last visitlower values represent high recency.
Taken together, the two mechanisms linking self-image congruence and perceived
community belongingness to the perception of the brands QOL impact explain 50%
of the variance in the brands perceived QOL impact (i.e., CWB).

a
Consumer Well-being

5
4

4.23 (High Cons.

Recency)

3.12 (High Cons.

Recency)

2
1
0

1.94
1.31

-3

-2

-1

1
2
3
Brand Community Belongingness

b
5
Consumer Well-being

Fig. 2 Interaction plots. a brand

community belongingness
consumption recency. b Selfimage congruence brand
loyalty

(High Brand
3.62 Loyalty)

3
2

2.41
2.30

2.26 (Low Brand

Loyalty)

1
0

-3

-2

-1

3
Self-Image Congruence

300

S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy

Discussion
The results of this study suggest a slight modification of our hypothesized model. The
modified model is shown in Fig. 3. The figure demonstrates that CWB is directly affected
by brand loyalty (instead of self-congruity) and brand-community belongingness. Selfcongruity is found to moderate the relationship between brand loyalty and CWB.
This means that our study has shown that CWB can be predicted by brand loyalty and
brand-community belongingness. And these two effects can be amplified by self-congruity
and consumption recency. That is, not only does brand loyalty contributes to CWB, it does
so much more under conditions when consumers experience high levels of self-congruity.
Similarly, brand-community belongingness does contribute directly to CWB and its effect
on CWB is significantly amplified given recent consumption experiences.
What are the managerial implications of the model suggested by the data?
Marketers interested in contributing to the well-being of their customers (we call them
QOL marketers) should have in place marketing programs designed to enhance brand
loyalty (e.g., frequency marketing programs that encourage repeat patronage) and
brand community experience (e.g., giving away or selling T-shirts and mugs with the
brand name, marketing events that facilitate networking among brand users, developing
Internet blogs allowing brand users to connect with others and feel like they belong to
the brand community). QOL marketers should also engage in advertising and promotion
using messages that reflect the kind of brand-user image that the vast majority of the
brand customers can identify with (i.e., experience self-congruity). Such efforts would
further the effect of brand loyalty on CWB. Furthermore, the data suggest that
consumption recency accentuates the CWB effect of brand-community belongingness.
Therefore, QOL marketers should take steps to ensure that customers use the brand often
enough to create a top-of-mind awareness of the brand. The brand has to be experienced
frequently and recently to have the expected desired effect on CWB. Again, promotional
programs designed to regard customers for frequent and continuous use of the brand
should be implemented to generate this desired effect on CWB.
With respect to the theoretical contribution of this research, one can argue that our
study has provided additional theoretical support to the perceived QOL impact
model of CWB. The theory of perceived QOL impact posits that CWB can indeed
be captured by asking consumers to report on their perceptions of the extent to
Fig. 3 The modified research
model

Self-Image
Congruence
H3
Brand
Loyalty

H1

Brand
Community
Belongingness

H2

CWB

H4
Consumption
Recency

Control Variables
Purchase Amount
Respondent Age
Respondent Gender

Consumer Well-Being (CWB)

301

which a particular product contributes to positive affect in various life domains thus
affecting their overall quality of life. Our study, in addition to past studies (e.g.,
Sirgy et al. 2006), demonstrates the viability of this approach to conceptualizing and
theorizing about CWB.
With respect to study limitations and future research, future research can build on
the CWB model to answer the following questions:
1. What is the role of life-style congruity on CWB? Can marketers enhance CWB
by embedding their brand in a product constellation that reflects a specific
lifestyle? For example, one can argue that a life-style of business executives who
travel a great may entail the consumption of a product constellation that includes
using airlines, airports, car rentals, chain restaurants, hotels within close
proximity to airports, night clubs within close proximity to airports, How does
a product that fits into a life-style constellation of products contribute to CWB?
Would this life-style congruity play a direct role in CWB? Would it play a
moderating role between brand loyalty and CWB? Would it moderate the effect
of brand-community belongingness on CWB? Future research should incorporate life-style congruity into the CWB model.
2. What about other factors such as product involvement? How do this construct fit
in the overall model of CWB? One can argue that the more consumers are
emotionally and cognitively involved with a particular product the more they
will experience the emotional impact of that product in the context of various
life domains. If so, does product involvement play a moderating role between
brand loyalty and CWB? Does it play a moderating role between brandcommunity belongingness and CWB?
3. Consider other factors such as brand-relationship quality. One can theorize that
consumers experiencing a high level of brand relationship quality are likely to
experience high levels of CWB. Future research should test such hypothesis. Would
the effect of brand-relationship quality on CWB be moderated by other variables
such brand loyalty, product involvement, and consumption frequency and recency?
Future research should also test the CWB model across a wide range of consumer
goods and services to establish the robustness of the model. Better measures of
CWB should be developed and their reliability and validity tested to allow for
measure refinement. Future research should make every attempt possible to reduce
method bias commonly found in self-report surveys. The use of measurement
approaches (e.g., observation, in-depth interviews, and the use of informants) should
reduce method artifacts and demonstrate the real viability of the theoretical model.

APPENDIX 1. Scale Items and Reliabilities

Perceived Quality of Life Impact (AVE=0.61; =0.83)
Does shopping at this coffee shop contribute to your quality of life?
1. This coffee shop satisfies my overall coffee needs.X
2. This coffee shop plays a very important role in my social well-being.

302

S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy

3. This coffee shop plays an important role in my leisure well-being.

4. This coffee shop plays an important role in enhancing the quality of my schoollife.
Brand Community Belongingness (AVE=0.53; =0.85)
How do you evaluate the social environment in this coffee shop?
1. I enjoy being part of the social activities in this coffee shop.
2. I would miss interacting with other patrons of this coffee shop if it was to go out
of business.
3. Some of my best friends frequent this coffee shop.
4. I enjoy interacting with patrons at this coffee shop more than interacting with
those of other coffee shops.
5. For me, the patrons of this coffee shop are one of the most important groups to
which I belong.
Self-image Congruence
Brand-(AVE=0.77; =0.87)
Do the typical people who buy this brand of coffee match how you see yourself?
1. I can identify myself with the people who buy this brand of coffee.
2. The typical person who buys this brand of coffee matches how I see myself.
3. The image of this coffee brand is highly inconsistent with my self-image.XR
Retail-(AVE=0.80; =0.89)
Do the typical people who shop at this coffee store match how you see yourself?
1. I can identify myself with the people who shop at this store.
2. The typical person who comes to this store matches how I see myself.
3. The image of this store is highly inconsistent with my self-image.XR
Personnel- (AVE=0.83; =0.91)
Do the typical people who work at this coffee store match how you see yourself?
1. I can identify myself with the people who work at this store.
2. The typical person who works at this store matches how I see myself.
3. The image of this stores personnel is highly inconsistent with my selfimage.XR
Brand Loyalty
Behavior-(AVE=0.80; =0.89)
How often do you come to this coffee shop?
1. I am a regular at this coffee shop.
2. I visit this coffee shop very frequently.
3. I always go to this coffee shop.X
Cognition-(AVE=0.60; =0.81)

Consumer Well-Being (CWB)

303

Do you believe this coffee shop offers value?

1. This coffee shop is the best.
2. This coffee shop has high quality products.
3. Buying at this coffee shop will always satisfy my needs.
Affect-(AVE=0.74; =0.89)
How do you feel about this coffee shop?
1. I like it a lot.
2. I am very fond of it.
3. I love it.
Action-(AVE=0.75; =0.90)
Would you go out of your way for this coffee shop?
1. I would not switch coffee shops even if it was more convenient.
2. I would pay more at this coffee shop than at other ones.
3. I would wait longer at this coffee shop than at other ones.
Consumption Recency
How long ago did you visit this coffee shop? ______________ (days)
Notes:
X=scale item excluded during measure purification
R=reverse scaled item.

References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 16, 7494, (Spring).
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81105.
Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of
Marketing Research, 16(1), 6473.
Day, R. L. (1978). Beyond social Indicators: Quality of life at the individual level. In F. D. Reynolds & H.
C. Barksdale (Eds.), Marketing and the quality of life (pp. 1118). Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association.
Day, R. L. (1987). Relationships between life satisfaction and consumer satisfaction. In A. C. Samli (Ed.),
Marketing and the quality-of-life interface (pp. 289311). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Epstein, S. (1980). The self-concept: A review and the proposal of an integrated theory of personality. In
E. Staub (Ed.), Personality: Basic issues and current research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of
Marketing, 56, 621, (January).
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60, 718, (October).
Fornell, C. D., & Larcker, F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950, (Feb).

304

S. Grzeskowiak, M. J. Sirgy

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343373.
Hornik, J. (1984). Subjective vs. objective time measures: A note on the perception of time in consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 615619.
Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. New York: Island Press.
Lee, D.-J., & Sirgy, M. J. (2004). Quality-of-life (QOL) marketing: Proposed antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Macromarketing, 24, 4458, (June).
Leelakulthanit, O., Day, R., & Walters, R. (1991). Investigating the relationship between marketing and
overall satisfaction with life in a developing country. Journal of Macromarketing, (Spring), 323.
Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: The multiplicity of
meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
34(4), 481493.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37 (July-August), 117124.
McAlexander, J., Schouten, J., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing,
66(1), 3854.
Muniz, A., & OGuinn, T. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 412432,
(June).
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the customer. New York: McGraw Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 3334.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management.
Journal of Marketing, 50, 135145, (October).
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879903.
Popper, K. R. (1935). Logik der Forschung. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Samli, A. C., Sirgy, M. J., & Meadow, H. L. (1987). Measuring marketing contribution to quality of life.
In A. C. Samli (Ed.), Marketing and quality-of-life interface (pp. 314). Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Schouten, J., & McAlexander, J. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers.
Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 4361, (June).
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research,
9, 287300, (December).
Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing perspective. Dordecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J. O., Chon, K. S., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J. S., &
Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image
congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), 229241.
Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Bae, J. (2006). Developing a subjective measure of Internet well-being:
Nomological (predictive) validation. Social Indicators Research, 78(2), 205249.
Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Rahtz, D. (2007). Research in consumer well-being (CWB): An overview of the
field and introduction to the special issue. Journal of Macromarketing, 27(4), 341349.
Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical
evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 1635.
The Home Office (2003). Building a picture of community cohesion. London, UK.: The Home Office
Community Cohesion Unit.