Self-concept and brand preference:

An empirical application of multidimensional scaling

Paul E. Green, Amn Maheshwari and Vithala R. Rao University of Pennsylvania

Reprinted from

Journal of the Market Research Society 11, 4, 1969, pp 343-360

Self-concept and brand preference:

An empirical application of multidimensional scaling

Paul E. Green, Arun Maheshwari and Vithala R. Rao* University of Pennsylvania

While self-concept theory and its relationship to buyer behaviour still appears rather inchoate, a number of researchers (Birdwell, January & October 1968; Dolich 1969; Grubb & Hupp 1968; Grubb & Grathwohl 1967; Myers & Reynolds 1967) have advanced this approach as fruitful for empirical investigation. Although implications of the theory are also not fully articulated, one can gather the following assertions from the literature:

1 Some forms of behaviour are primarily expressive in which the consumer seeks to convey to others the kind of person he thinks (or, perhaps, wants) himself to be.

2 Brands or suppliers of services connote various images to the consumers, presumably in the same cognitive space that contains the consumer's self-image.

3 Consumers will seek out brands or suppliers whose images are congruent or compatible with their concept of self.

Many questions arise in the process of developing operational definitions and testable hypotheses from self-concept theory. For example, which 'self' is pertinent: real self; ideal self; self as attributed to significant others; stereotyped self; and so on? Moreover, what is meant by 'congruence' and does this imply that brands or suppliers whose images are 'close' to one's self-image will be preferred to those whose images are 'farther away'? If so, how is distance of stimuli to self to be measured?

Despite the many theoretical difficulties surrounding self-concept theory, several empirical studies have been conducted on various aspects of the concept. Two studies in particular motivated the research

*Paul E. Green is professor of marketing and Arun Maheshwari and Vithala R. Rao are doctoral candidates at the Wharton School of Finance and Corrunerce. The authors are indebted to Gerald Williams, Bing Inocencio and Richard Fenwick for help in data collection and tabulation, Financial support, in part, was provided by the Marketing Science Institute and the AAAA Educational Foundation.

Journal of the Market Research Society volume 11 number 4

reported here. Birdwell (January 1968), as well as Grubb and Hupp (1968), independently found confirming evidence for brand choice and image congruity. That is, they found that people chose brands whose 'personalities' were similar to their self-perceptions. Both studies used automobiles as the product class and the semantic differential as the primary measurement technique. Moreover, in both studies the respondents were selected on the basis of brands already chosen. In the case of the Birdwell study, Evans (1968) has challenged this point insofar as it fails to consider the prediction of brand choice from prior information about image congruency.

In the study reported here-which also used automobile brands as stimuli-a somewhat different methodology was employed, namely, multidimensional scaling of similarities and preference data. In addition, no attempt was made to select respondents on the basis of present brand ownership; our interest was solely in the respondents' stated preferences and their relationship to image congruence.

The objectives of this paper are twofold:

1 To examine the relationship of image congruity to brand perception and preference for automobile models.

2 To investigate the relevance of multidimensional scaling methodology to this substantive problem.

While we were, and continue to be, interested in the substantive question, no claim is made that the analysis of results obtained from our small (and probably atypical) sample of respondents is readily generalisable to other situations and population groups. Rather, we feel that the findings of the study suggest that self theory and brand preference may be a more complex relationship than seems to be implied by other researchers working in this area.

Research design

The respondents in this study were forty-five second-year graduate business students at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; the sample was drawn on a convenience basis and all data were collected during the fourth week of September 1968. The stimuli (primarily) consisted of the names of eleven car models (see Table 1). Data were

Table 1 List of automobile brands used as stimuli

1 Volkswagen 1300 Sedan 2 Lincoln Continental V8 3 Ford Mustang 6

4 Dodge Dart V8

5 Chevrolet Camaro V8 6 Jaguar XKE Coupe

7 Ford Galaxie V8

8 Buick Le Sabre V8 9 Buick Opel Sedan

10 Chevrolet Corvette V8 11 Porsche Sports Coupe

Green et alia: Self-concept and brand preference

collected by personally administered questionnaires presented to respondents in small groups of from five to ten students each; all respondents answered the questionnaire independently on individual response forms.

Phase One of the questionnaire involved the collection of similarities data by the method of 'n-dimensional' rank order (Torgerson 1960). Briefly stated, each automobile brand name served, in turn, as a reference or anchor stimulus. The respondent was asked to rank the remaining ten car models in terms of their overall 'similarity' to the reference brand, using criteria of his own choosing but maintaining the same frame of reference throughout all comparisons. So as to examine the possible effect of stimulus definition on similarities responses, sixteen subjects out of the total of forty-five also were shown a coloured photograph of the automobile brand. The remaining twenty-nine subjects received only the brand name. After the similarity judgments were made, the respondents were asked to list the criteria which they believed they had employed in making the similarities judgments.

Phase Two of the interview consisted of presenting the respondent with twelve semantic differential scales drawn randomly from the set of twenty-two originally used by Birdwell (January 1968). Table 2 shows the bipolar adjective sets which were used; a seven-interval 'intensity' scale was employed. The first concept to be rated was MYSELF, as the subject he actually was. After self-image responses were obtained, each of the eleven car models, in turn, was rated on the same set of twelve scales.

Table 2 List of semantic differential adjective pairs

1 Sophisticated-Unsophisticated 2 Exciting-Dull

3 Husky-Weak

4 Eccentric-Conventional 5 Bold~Shy

6 Simple-Complex

7 Sporty-Businesslike 8 Stale-Fresh

9 Swift-Slow

-io Elegant-Plain

11 Reliable-Unreliable 12 Masculine-Feminine

In Phase Three of the interview, the respondent was asked to imagine that he had received $8,000 which could be spent for any luxury item he might desire. Under this scenario he was asked to rank the eleven cars in terms of personal preference, on the assumption that the difference between $8,000 and the price of the car could be spent in any way he pleased; car prices, however, were not stated.

Data processing

Processing of respondent data involved a large number of steps, only the highlights of which are summarised here:

Journal of the Market Research Society volume 11 number 4

1 Similarities data from Phase One were first preprocessed (Carmone et al. 1968) to yield a subject by similarities matrix. The order of the matrix was 45 X 55 inasmuch as eleven stimuli generate fifty-five distinct pairs. Cell entries consisted of each subject's (derived) rank number of the fifty-five pairs from most similar to least similar.

a) This matrix was submitted to a Tucker and Messick (1963) 'points of view' analysis in order to determine if subsets of respondents perceived the car brands differently.

b) The average subject's similarities vector was then scaled by means of the TORSCA multidimensional scaling program (Young 1968), yielding a stimulus configuration of the eleven brands of automobiles.

2 Semantic differential responses from Phase Two were processed in a variety of ways.

a) Following Birdwell's procedure (January 1968), for each subject separately the Euclidean distance of each car brand in semantic differential space was computed from the reference point, MYSELF. These distances were ranked and, for each subject, a rank correlation was computed between the distance ranks and the subject's actual preference ranks of Phase Three.

b) Average ratings (across subjects) were computed for the 11 X 12 matrix of car brands by semantic scales. These ratings were used to construct a stimulus (car brand) configuration which was then compared with the one obtained in step lb. In addition, the average semantic differential ratings were used to provide analytical help in the interpretation of the dimensions of the stimulus configuration found in step lb.

3 Respondent commonalities across Phases One, Two and Three were determined in an effort to see if subjects who responded similarly in one phase of the interview maintained this similarity over other phases.

Research questions

The main research questions investigated in the study were as follows:

1 Does evidence exist for a variety of points of views regarding judgments of overall similarity and difference? In particular, does the presence of a colour photograph of each brand (in addition to the brand name) lead to different similarities responses than are found when only the brand name appears?

2 Is the 'closeness' of brand image to self image (Phase Two) highly associated with brand preference (Phase Three)?

3 Is the stimulus configuration derivedfromprespecifiedconstructs (the semantic differential items) similar to that obtained from unstructured overall similarities judgments?

Green et alia: Self-concept and brand preference

4 Do subjects who have similar self images or exhibit commonality in preference 'see' the car brands similarly?

We discuss the above questions-and others-as the results of the analysis are next described.

Study results

Results of the study are first described by interview phase. Then various analyses are made across phases for the purpose of examining interstimulus and intersubject stability.

Phase One

It is recalled that in this phase of the interview overall judgments were obtained for each subject without prespecification of the criteria on which such similarities judgments' were to be made. Each car model, in turn, served as a reference item and the subject was asked to rank the remaining ten models in decreasing similarity to the reference item. From these responses a subjects by similarities matrix (of order 45 X 55) was obtained. The cell entries in each row of the matrix represented the similarity rank number of each of the 55 distinct pairs of car models for a specific subject.

If all subjects perceived the eleven cars in more or less the same way, we might expect that the 45 X 55 matrix would show virtually the same rank order in each row. On the other hand, systematic differences in perceptual viewpoint would be indicated by clusters of rank orders which differed across groups of subjects. The Tucker and Messick model (1963), utilising a Q-type component analysis, attempts (ultimately) to find such clusters of subjects whose points of view are homogeneous within group and different over groups. * In particular, we wished to see if the sixteen subjects who were shown coloured photographs in addition to the brand names would display different similarities vectors.

Figure 1 shows a plot of the first two (normalised) eigenvectors of the Q-type analysis. We note virtually no demarcation between the similarities responses of the sixteen subjects receiving coloured photographs and the twenty-ninesubjects who received only the brand names. In addition to the visual evidence of lack of clustering. it turned out that the first component accounted for 54 per cent of the total 'variance' in the 45 x 45 matrix ofrank correlation coefficients, while the second and third components or 'points of view' accounted, respectively, for only 8 and 5 per cent.

On the basis of these findings we elected to assume a single predominant point of view accompanied by unsystematic variation on the

*Since the correlation coefficients used in the Q-type analysis are Spearman rank order coefficients in this case, use of the (metric) Tucker-Messick model must be considered as an approximation to a nonmetric factor analysis. In a previous study (Green et al. 1969) the approximation was shown to be close to that obtained by nonmetric means.

Journal of the Market Research Society volume 11 number 4

Figure 1 Plot of first two normalised eigenvectors-Tucker and Messick point of view analysis

(Points are subject numbers)

y

•
9 .15
.29
• 2· ~14
20 • •
24 26 J9
45+ .13
3'3 • ·7
40+. 17 -5
21 +34 +3;
-
• 25 41++ X
16 8- als 43
-18
•
·10 6 +32
31+ .23
11--4
• ~2
-I' 12
, 30 3
+. 27 +
1·+44 +- 39
• 38
28 + Colour photograph • No photograph

Journal of the Market Research Society volume 11 number 4

0 .......... 0-00'D'<i"0'\000 ('1 OOO'\t-'DMO'\v)'<i"'<i"OO<"'>

..... MNMMM"";MM..,f"";N

'D('1('100('1'<i"-OOMt-'D ..... t- ('1 '<i" - ('1 '<i" 0'\ 0'\ V) ('1 V)

..... "";NI"'lMMMNNMMN

t-'<i"-('1"<:tt-00t-0-0'\

o 00 '<i" 0'\ 00 'D 00 M ('1 'D 0'\ 00

- v)"";M..,fM"";..,fMv)NN

'<i"O'\-OOO-M'<i"'DO'\O 0'\ "<:t 00 - 0'\ 'D V) 0'\ ('1 <"'> '<i" 00

v)NMMN"";MMv)"";"";

00 ;:::;;;:;::g;;:;~8~~::g~;:::; M..,f..,fM..,f\oMMM v) v)

0'\('1 ('1-_'D'D000 ('1 <"'>
t- '<i"('1'<i"_MMO'\'<i"_'<i"t-
..,fv)N..,fN"";..,f..,f..,f"";"";
t/}
(1)
C;; O'DMOOt-t-t-'D'<i"('1('1
t) 'D 'DMt-MOOOO'Dv)'DOO'<i"
en Nv)MMMv)M..,fNv)v)
*
CIl
<1.1
s
CIl
>. _M$f'D'DOO-'DOOO-
.c V) V)O'\ V)O'\t-_V)OO'\M
Ja ..,fNM..,fN"";..,fMv)"";N
<1.1
"Q
e
S
"'"
r 00_00'Dt-00t-00000'\'D
'<i" V)Mv)_'DM('1v)t-OOV)
~ ..,f..,f..,fv) MN V)..,f..,fNN
.5
....
eo:!
"'"
] OOMOOO'\O'\t-~('100('1
M OO'<i"M-O'<i"'<i" ('1-00
.... ~NM~MNMMv)NN
c
<1.1 C
"'"
~ .9
;S ~
t)
.:! ~~~~~~~~~~S :s
.... ('1 c
= v)NN..,fN,...;..,fMv)"";N
eo:! (1)
S :8
<1.1
CIl ....
.... <2
c:.;
<1.1 '<i"_Mt-t-_NO_Ot- N
:s ...... OV)t-"<:tNV)('1('1M'DOO "0
= v)"";M~M"";..,fMv)N"";
CIl c
~ C':I
OIl -
C':I t/}
"'"
<1.1 (1)
... ::0
-< C':I
r'l t-<
.£ (1)
(1)
.c .... -NM'<i"v)'Dt-OOO'\O- en
~ ro --
U * Green et alia: Self-concept and brand preference

Figure 2 Average-subject stimulus configuration from TORSCA scaling program

__________________ ~~~~-------------------x

.10

Stress = 0.10831

1 - Volkswagen 2 - Continental 3 - Mustang

4 - Dart

5 - Camaro 6 - Jaguar

7 - Galaxie 8 - Le Sabre 9 - Opel

10 - Corvette 11 - Porsche

UJ't:Ul tel uuu, oeij-coucept aua orana preference

Figure 3 Average-subject configuration and vectors most highly correlated with semantic differential scales

Notes:

1 See Figure 2 for Point Identification

2 See Table 2 for Vector Identification

351

Journal of the Market Research Society volume 11 number 4

part of individual subjects. * Accordingly, a similarities vector for the whole group of 45 subjects was obtained by aggregation over individual rank orders. This vector was scaled by means of the TORSCA nonmetric scaling program (Young 1968).

Figure 2 shows a two-space representation of the eleven car models as obtained from the scaling of group data.**The scaling program attempts to find a configuration whose rank order of (ratio-scaled) interpoint distances is most nearly monotone with that of the input data in a specified number of dimensions. Labelling of the dimensions must be done extrastatistically, however, and the configuration itself is unique only up to a similarity transform-translation, rotation, reflection and uniform stretching or compression of the axes. In this case it appears as though a rotation of approximately 30 degrees from the principal components orientation leads to a set of orthogonal axes (dotted lines) which appear most easily interpretable.

After rotation the dimensions appear to be 'luxuriousness' for the X' axis (yielding the rank order: Volkswagen, Camaro, Opel, Mustang, Galaxie, Dart, Corvette, Le Sabre, Porsche, Jaguar and Continental) and 'sportiness' for the Y axis (yielding the rank order: Galaxie, Le Sabre, Dart, Volkswagen, Opel, Continental, Camaro, Jaguar, Mustang, Corvette and Porsche). We emphasise the tentativeness of these labels and return to this point in the analysis of Phase Two data.

Table 4 Multiple correlation coefficients-Semantic differential scale values versus two-space coordinates of Figure 2

Semantic scale vector

1 Sophisticated-Unsophisticated 2 Exciting-Dull

3 Husky-Weak

4 Eccentric-Conventional 5 Bold-Shy

6 Simple-Complex

7 Sporty-Businesslike 8 Stale-Fresh

9 Swift-s-Slow

10 Elegant-Plain

11 Reliable-Unreliable 12 Masculine-Feminine

Multiple correlation coefficients 0.8899 0.8621 0.7725 0.8477 0.8568 0.9291 0.8193 0.8767 0.8047 0.8584 0.2466 0.8349

* This conjecture was checked by separately scaling three clusters of subjects: (a) a cluster made up of subjects 12 and 16; (b) a cluster consisting of subjects 9, 20 and 24; and (c) a cluster of the remaining 40 subjects. Interpoint distance correlations of the resulting stimulus configurations were, respectively, 0.60, 0.22 and 0.91 with those of the aggregate set.

** The two-space badness of fit measure, Kruskal's stress (1964) was approximately 0.11, a fair fit. The three-space fit dropped only to 0.07, however, while the one-space fit was 0.25, decidedly poor. On the basis of interpretability and the small decrease in stress between two and three dimensions, we elected to continue the analysis in two dimensions.

Green et alia: Self-concept and brand preference

Phase Two-Stimulus configuration

Phase Two data consisted of semantic differential ratings on the twelve scales of Table 2 for each subject (MYSELF) and for each of the eleven car models. The data thus consisted of a 45 X 12 X 12 three-way matrix of subjects by stimuli (including MYSELF) by scales. Interest first centred on the individual car ratings averaged over subjects for each semantic scale separately. These average ratings appear in Table 3.

Using the average ratings of each car model on each semantic scale, directions were found in the stimulus configuration of Figure 2, whose projections were maximally correlated with each semantic differential vector, in turn. These directions are shown in Figure 3, while Table 4 shows the goodness of fit measures, in this case multiple correlation coefficients, associated with each semantic differential scale.

We note from Figure 3 that the descriptors 'sophisticated', 'husky', 'complex' and 'elegant' are almost collinear with the horizontal (principal components) axis, while 'sporty' and 'reliable' are almost collinear with the vertical (principal components) axis. We also note that a rotation of approximately 30 degrees is appropriate if 'sporty' describes the vertical axis (and orthogonality is to be maintained). All multiple correlations are reasonably high with the exception of that for the 'reliability' descriptor.

Table 5 Response frequency with which specific criteria were mentioned as underlying judgments of overall similarity-Phase One

---------------------------------

Criteria

Number of respondents mentioning"

1 Price

2 Economy of operation 3 Style

4 Luxury

5 Sportiness 6 Size

7 Quality

8 Performance

9 Domestic vs. foreign 10 Status

11 Engine size 12 Reliability 13 Comfort 14 Safety

27 6 13 5 12 14 6

13 2 6 5 6 2 1

"Includes cases of multiple response.

Finally, Table 5 shows the frequency with which respondents stated various criteria which they believed they had used in making overall similarities judgments. We note the high frequencies associated with the

Journal of the Market Research Society volume II number ..f.

descriptors of price, size, style, performance and sportiness. While our labelling of the dimensions of Figure 2 is still quite subjective, it appears as though 'luxuriousness' and 'sportiness' (or their correlates) are reasonable descriptors.

One other comparison of the prespecified (semantic differential) space and the overall similarities space (Figure 2) was made. In this step Euclidean distances in semantic differential twelve-space were computed between all pairs of car models. The distance measures were then scaled by the TORSCA program and the resultant two-space configuration was compared with that of Figure 2. The correlation between interpoint distances was only 0.57, suggesting that (manifest) equal weighting of the semantic differential scales did not lead to highly congruent results. *

In summary, the tentative labels of 'luxuriousness' and 'sportiness' (or their correlates) appear to hold up reasonably well when the prespecified (semantic differential) attributes are utilised in the analysis.

Phase Three-The congruity hypothesis

The manifest preference data of Phase Three consisted of a 45 X 11 matrix of subject by car model rank orders. For reference purposes the aggregated (group) rank order from most to least preferred was:

(1) Corvette (2) Porsche

(3) Camaro

(4) Jaguar

(5) Mustang (6) Continental

As can be noted, the respondent group tended to prefer rather sporty cars like Corvette and Porsche and exhibit low preference for conservative cars like Le Sabre and Galaxie.

We now turn to the principal hypothesis of the study: are individual preferences of car models associated with the psychological nearness of car 'personalities' to the subject's self concept? This hypothesis and related questions were examined in several ways and entailed comparisons across the three phases of the study.

A fairly direct examination of the hypothesis was first made by computing, for each subject separately, the Euclidean distance of each car model in semantic differential twelve-space from his MYSELF point in that same space. The rank order of these distances was then corrrelated (Spearman rank order coefficient) with each subject's stated preference order of the eleven car models.

For comparison purposes with the manifest preferences already shown, the aggregated (group) rank order of stimuli (most to least

(7) Dart

(8) Volkswagen (9) Opel

(10) Le Sabre (11) Galaxie

* This is to be contrasted to a canonical correlation which permits differential stretching of the axes and, in general, allows for differences in the relative importance of the dimensions (underlying the semantic scales) in accounting for overall similarities judgments. A canonical correlation between the same two (11 x 2) configurations produced an index of 0.89 for the first linear compound.

Journal (~r the Market Research Society volume 11 number 4

Table 6 shows each individual's Spearman rank order correlation coefficient for step 1 above. The median rank correlation was only 0.409. Moreover, only six of the 45 correlations coefficients exceeded 0.8. On the other hand, twelve of the correlation coefficients were negative. We are led to conclude that self-concept congruity, as measured (inversely) by Euclidean distance in semantic differential space, shows wide variation in its correlation with manifest preferences.

Canonical correlations of the respondent configurations developed from preference ranks, MYSELF ratings and car model semantic differential ratings also (indirectly) supported the above finding. The canonical correlations (first linear compound) were 0.51, 0.69 and 0.58, respectively, between three-space TORSCA subject configurations based on: (a) preference versus MYSELF ratings ; (b) preference versus car model ratings; and (c) MYSELF ratings versus car model ratings.

Thus it does not appear that between-subject similarity in one class of responses carries over to other classes of response. For example, two subjects whose manifest preference data are highly correlated do not generally exhibit differentially high correlation with regard to self-image or perception of the stimuli in terms of the complete set of car model ratings.

Discussion

Since the main results of this study appear to be at some variance with previous studies (Birdwell January 1968; Dolich 1969; Grubb & Hupp 1968), we first recapitulate the summary findings and then comment on some of these results as they relate to the literature:

I In terms of overall similarities judgments (Phase One) a single predominant point of view obtains, coupled with unsystematic 'error' variance. In particular, the presence of a colour photograph does not appear to result in systematically different perceptual viewpoints.

2 The group stimulus configuration obtained from prespecified constructs (Phase Two) and the group stimulus configuration of Phase One require differential stretching of the attribute dimensions in order to be congruent with each other; the resulting canonical correlation was 0.89 for the first linear compound.

3 Subjects who exhibit similar self images do not exhibit differentially high commonality in perceiving the stimuli (in terms of the semantic ratings) or high commonality in car preferences.

4 Manifest preferences do not appear to be highly correlated with the Euclidean distance of car stimuli from real self in semantic differential space.

We are-not surprised with the commonality of perceptual viewpoint

Green et alia: Self-concept and brand preference

preferred), as derived from the individuals' interpoint distance data, was:

(1) Le Sabre (2) Camaro

(3) Continental (4) Mustang

(5) Porsche (6) Jaguar (7) Corvette (8) Galaxie

(9) Dart

(10) Volkswagen (11) Opel

We note that on an aggregated basis the rank order is quite discrepant from that obtained by aggregation of manifest preferences (Phase Three). We see that conservative cars are highly preferred by the group if one uses nearness to self-image as a preference surrogate. The manifest preference data, on the other hand, yield low preference rankings for conservative cars, as already shown.

Second, subject configurations-based on intersubject correlationswere found in reduced: (a) preference space; (b) semantic differential space based only on MYSELF responses; and (c) semantic differential space based only on car model ratings. In each case intersubject correlation coefficients (incremented by unity) served as input to the TORSCA scaling program. Three-space solutions were sought in which each set of point coordinates characterised the position of a respondent and whose inverse of interpoint distance ranks most closely matched the ranks of intersubject similarities (correlation coefficients incremented by unity).

Table 6 Spearman rank order correlation coefficients-Phase Two derived ranking vs. Phase Three direct ranking

Subject 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

*Median

Coefficient

Coefficient

0.60909 0.85455 0.56364 0.31818 0.71818 0.80909 0.73636 0.84545

-0.30000 0.84545

-0.19091 0.12727 0.46364 0.55455 0.11818

-0.06364

0.09091 -0.38636

-0.03363

-0.20909

0.60000 0.23636 0.33636

Subject 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

-0.01818

-0.26364

-0.29091

0.41818 -0.11818

-0.65454

0.54545 0.17273 0.31818 0.45455 0.18182 0.54545 0.40909* 0.67273 0.80455 0.74545 0.70909 0.62727 0.87273 0.12727

-0.36364 0.83636

VI c c t t c, uuu, JeU-CUllcep' UlW oraua pre}l!/'ellce

noted in result 1. The stimuli were all highly familiar to the respondents and the respondents themselves, all second-year graduate business students, are a reasonably homogeneous group. Moreover, the same dimensions of 'luxuriousness' and 'sportiness' were found in an earlier study involving, in part, non-student subjects (Green et al, 1969). Result 2 merely reflects the (probable) differential importance of the semantic scales in contributing to 'overall' similarity.

Result 3, while seemingly surprising, appears less so upon reflection.

First, a high degree of respondent commonality exists in the semantic differential ratings of the cars* in the first place (although such was not the case for MYSELF ratings or preference ranks). This suggests the presence of a dominant point of view insofar as car models (based on semantic differential ratings) are concerned but considerable intersubject differences in preference and self image.

Individual differences in preference and self image, considered separately, are relatively highly variable and do not appear to be highly correlated across subject pairs. This finding appears most directly evident in result 4. It is here where the findings of this study appear most discrepant with those of Birdwell (1968) and Grubb and Hupp (1968), who also used car names as stimuli. Contrary to these earlier studies, what we seem to have found are instances of 'reaction formation' in which some subjects prefer cars whose 'personalities' may be highly discrepant with their self image.

Birdwell did find in his study that image congruence decreased from owners of prestige cars to owners of compacts, noting that in the latter case other factors (purchasing power, social norms) may be more influential in car model choice. Since Birdwell did not collect preference judgments, his statistical analyses are based on distance measures and brand ownership. While his and our studies are not directly comparable, it seems to us that the image congruency noted in the Birdwell study may, in part, be due to post-decision reinforcement, a point made by Evans (1968) and also discussed in Birdwell's original paper.**

The Grubb and Hupp study appears even less comparable with ours than the Birdwell research, In the Grubb and Hupp study semantic differential responses pertained to car owners (Pontiac GTO and Volkswagen 1200-1300 sedan) rather than the car models themselves. That is,

* Commonality of perceptual viewpoint was again checked by means of a points of view analysis. Again a single predominant point of view was noted in the Phase Two (car ratings only) data. The first eigenvalue accounted for 52 per cent of the total 'variance'. In contrast, the first eigenvalue accounted for 24 and 28 per cent, respectively, of total variation in intersubject correlations based on MYSELF ratings and manifest preferences.

** Again our findings appear to support Evans' criticism regarding intersubject differences in car perception as related to type of car owners. We found high commonality of car model perception in both Phases One and Two. Part of this high homogeneity may be due, of course, to the homogeneity of our sample of respondents to begin with. However, as already noted, such homogeneity did not exist with respect to either preference or self image.

357

Journal of the Market Research Society volurne 11 number 4

responses were confined to self concept, e.g., the respondent's stereotyped concept of owners of the same versus different cars. They found that "consumers of specific brands have definite perceptions about the self-concept characteristic of those who consume their brand as well as the self-concept characteristics of those who consume competing brands". (Grubb & Hupp 1968.)

In this respect we can only say that in our study a comparatively high degree of subject heterogeneity was noted with regard to self image in contrast to low intersubject variability in similarities judgments and car ratings. Unfortunately, however, no data were collected on the relationship of self image responses to car ownership; hence we are unable to provide relevant findings for the Grubb and Hupp study beyond noting high variability in the individual rank correlations between Euclidean distances from MYSELF and manifestly stated preference.

Conclusions

From a substantive viewpoint, what seems to have happened in the study is that self image appears more 'conservative' as a surrogate measure than preference itself. This finding tends to support our earlier comment dealing with reaction formation. That is, for a number of subjects in this study preference is not positively related to image closeness. Rather, it seems as though the data reflect instances of both proverbs:

1 'Birds of a feather flock together'.

2 'Opposites attract'.

While we have no additional information by which to compare the above relationships, say, with subject personality traits, it seems clear to us that the relationship between image congruence and preference is more complex than previous marketing research studies may suggest. At the least, the notion of. 'distance' of stimuli to self image may involve differential weighting of the semantic differential scale dimensions, a point not made in conceptual discussions of the theory.

In this study we elected to give equal (manifest) weight to the semantic scales so as to follow a procedure similar to that used by Birdwell (1968). As has already been noted in comparing the direct similarities configuration of Phase One with a derived configuration of stimuli (obtained by multidimensional scaling of Euclidean distance based on Phase Two average car ratings in semantic differential space), the congruence was poor if no differential stretching of the axes is permitted.

In summary, it seems to us that operationalisation of the congruity hypothesis requires considerably more study involving at least an examination of: (a) equal (manifest) weighting of semantic scales in computing Euclidean distances from stimuli to MYSELF; (b) alternative

«rreeu et aua: Setj-concept ami orana preference

preference formulations, including vector models;* (c) relationships of image congruity (or lack thereof) to respondent personality characteristics; and (d) relationships to alternative formulations of 'self', e.g., real, ideal, stereotyped, and so on. We feel that the value of this study lies less in the definitiveness of its conclusions than in raising caveats regarding the naive application of self theory to marketing research problems.

Methodological limitations

While one of the motivations of this study was substantive, some concluding comments might be made regarding the relevance of multidimensional scaling to content areas of the type explored here. In our judgment the scaling techniques illustrated here will find increasing application in the study of consumer perception and preference. The methodology appears to provide rather succinct characterisations of similarities and preference data which can readily be subjected to further analysis.

But it is well to separate the data reduction task from the implied psychological theory underlying the algorithms. (We are much more sanguine about the potential value of the techniques in satisfying the former objective than we are about the latter.) A number of problems are associated with the use of multidimensional scaling methods in the analysis of perceptual and evaluative judgments.

First, the techniques provide only the configuration, not the axis labels. In this study we utilised 'outside' vectors (from the semantic differential responses) as guides to dimensional interpretation. While we believe this approach has merit, other devices for configuration interpretation must be developed and evaluated.

Second, little work has been done so far on the stability of multidimensional scaling solutions over such variables as data collection method, changes in the composition of the stimulus set, changes in scenario, and the like. For example, it seems to us that similarity and preference judgments' are likely to be context dependent and more research is needed on relating the results of similarities and preference mappings to changes in data collection ·scenario .

. Third, some questions may be raised regarding the comparatively large amount of computing time associated with nonmetric (iterative) methods. To justify this increased data processing cost, it must, of course, be demonstrated that nonmetric methods produce different (and more defensible) results. Surely, the assumptions underlying these models are weaker than metric (e.g. factor analytic) models. It is by no means apparent, however, that metric models might not provide good approximations in many cases of practical interest.

* Although not described here, additional analyses were made of the similarities (Phase One) data and the preference vectors, resulting in a 'joint' space of car models and respondents (Carroll & Chang 1967). These analyses suggested that a simple vector model (a special case of the ideal point model implied by self concept theory) might adequately represent the combined similarities and preference data.

Journal of the Market Research Societ i

Finally, we should mention that ut

techniques lack a firm basis for stallsr:~-=:er:=::~~_==::: _

proceeding toward the development or 1::::=======:===============

to say that the methodology is Cll1Te= -- ti::.: ~

Algorithm development has proceeded :1::::::::.'1 IIlI!;;; ============ application. We hope that a greater no01::::will be made by researchers in an efiiw[ _ these procedures in appropriate contcn:-=._ Jf =:1:--provide direction for future model dt'\-cr:::::::::..

References

BIRDWELL, A. E. (1968) 'A study of the inftu"ll':-~::::::;= =~jc __ :::::-:==:::::::::::::::

choice', Journal of Business, 41, January. j.'!' "':'': ::== __ ~ __ ~ ~~ __

------(1968) 'Automobiles and :-epr· ,

41, October, pp. 486-7.

CARMONE, F. J., GREEN, P. E. and ROB[NS(\~.;' 23:) 'n.::::.-:-FORTRAN IV Program for the trianguJ2t"":c:- zonjrrrr Marketing Research 5, May, pp, 219-20.

CARROLL, J. D. and CHANG, J. J. (1967' ====================

dimensional scaling solutions via a geners:~==:;)0!J:5' :::==:: ================ (mimeographed) Bell Telephone Laborarco>- ~ 3il.'ic'-. __

CooMBS, C. H. (1964) A theory 0/ data New Y.y_:.:::r W'i!!r k. DOLICH, I. J. (1969) 'Congruence relation.;;";;"" == ser: :TI:l brands' Journal 0/ Marketing Research t. ~';::::::::p. 8~.4

EVANS, F. B. (1968) 'Automobiles and self-i1""~';;'- .~ ..... :' ;:zm;:;: =========== October, pp. 484-85.

GREEN, P. E .• MAHESHWARI, ARUN and Rt>..'. \ is'' ~===

tion and configuration invariance in r>::U'::::':':':I":L ~;;-.:= '-.-:::--================== study', Multivariate Behavioral Research ... ;C:::_:::I"eS:S_

GRUBB E. L. and Hur-r- G. (1968) 'Percercc= I: ·~:Zi===:::::======= brand selection' Journal 0/ Marketing RR'_~-O':::';;"_~~ :;-;-======== GRUBB, E. L. and GRATHWOHL, H. L. (1961' market behavior: a theoretical approacr 1;-=::_;-- _"'[ttr.e-!7E=

pp.22-27.

KRUSKAL, J. B. (1964) 'Multidimensional sc;;:::': ::-:::::::ziP,;.;r;l=============::::.

nonmetric hypothesis', Psychometrika, 2{, MYERS, J. H .. and REYNOLDS, W. H. (1~- '-=rr :::e!I;ru;r"'?:,,~;_;:'~ management Boston: Houghton Mifflin 0- TORGERSON, W. S. (1960) Theory and methor Sons.

TUCKER, L. R. and MESSICK, SAMUEL (l9f.: :..~ ;:;::..- . ...;;~.;._.'--._~ multidimensional scaling', Psychometrlka ~.>_;:;;.

YOUNG, F. W. (1968) 'TORSCA, an IBM PT~-~= :_1Ir.-=::::;:: ~ .. ========'--=:::.

scaling', Journal 0/ Marketing Research, .~. ,.,,-- '::':'i:,;2_