Congruence (Self with Brand) (CON)

Abstract

The Congruence (Self with Brand) (CON) scale, developed by Einar Breivik and Helge Thorbjørnsen (2008), is a concise, psychometrically validated three-item instrument designed to assess direct, holistic self-image congruence between a consumer and a brand. Rooted in self-concept theory and the extended self paradigm, the scale quantifies the degree to which an individual perceives a psychological alignment, personality match, and identity overlap with a target brand. Rather than employing indirect, attribute-by-attribute mathematical discrepancy models (e.g., comparing semantic differential ratings of the self against ratings of the brand across multiple traits), this instrument adopts an integrative, subjective assessment approach. Respondents evaluate statements using a 7-point Likert-type response format anchored from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”). Psychometric evaluations conducted within structural equation modeling frameworks establish that the scale is strictly unidimensional, displaying high internal consistency reliability (α > .88; Composite Reliability > .88; Average Variance Extracted > .70). The scale demonstrates robust convergent validity with consumer-brand relationship quality, affective brand attachment, and brand loyalty, as well as distinct discriminant validity against related constructs such as brand satisfaction, trust, and brand personality dimensions. The scale serves as an efficient, low-burden measurement tool for market researchers, consumer psychologists, and psychometricians investigating consumer identity, symbolic consumption, and the relational foundations of brand equity.

Keywords

Brand-self congruence, self-image congruence, consumer-brand relationships, symbolic consumption, self-concept, social identity theory, extended self, brand identification, psychometrics, structural equation modeling.

Authors

The Congruence (Self with Brand) (CON) scale was developed and operationalized by:

• Einar Breivik, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Department of Strategy and Management, NHH Norwegian School of Economics (Norges Handelshøyskole), Bergen, Norway. Specialist in consumer behavior, brand management, and structural equation modeling.
• Helge Thorbjørnsen, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Department of Strategy and Management, and Center for Applied Research (SNF) at the NHH Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway. Researcher in behavioral economics, digital services, and consumer-brand relationships.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Congruence (Self with Brand) scale is to capture a consumer’s global subjective assessment of the similarity between their personal identity and a commercial brand’s perceived image or personality. In contemporary psychological and marketing paradigms, brands do not operate merely as bundles of functional utilities; they function as potent symbolic resources that individuals employ to express, validate, and reinforce their self-concepts (Belk, 1988; Fournier, 1998).

Historically, consumer psychologists attempted to measure self-image congruence using discrepancy formulations (e.g., calculating Euclidean distances or absolute difference scores between separate ratings of self-image and brand-image across dozens of personality traits). However, psychometricians demonstrated that mathematical discrepancy scores suffer from severe statistical artifacts, including reduced reliability, spurious correlations, restriction of variance, and systematically confounded main effects (Cronbach, 1958; Peter et al., 1993; Sirgy et al., 1997). Breivik and Thorbjørnsen (2008) introduced this three-item direct measure to overcome these methodological limitations, capturing the consumer’s psychological gestalt of congruence without imposing pre-defined trait vocabularies.

The instrument is widely applied in:

• Consumer-Brand Relationship Modeling: Investigating the structural antecedents and mediators of brand love, emotional attachment, and Brand Relationship Quality (BRQ).
• Identity and Symbolic Consumption Studies: Assessing how consumers use commercial entities for identity signaling, self-verification, and self-enhancement.
• Product Positioning and Segmentation: Quantifying whether a brand’s repositioning strategy succeeds in aligning with the self-identity of high-value target demographics.
• Post-Merger and Rebranding Evaluations: Monitoring shifts in brand-self identification when brands undergo corporate identity changes or brand architecture restructuring.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the CON scale is Self-Image Congruence (specifically brand-self congruence). Self-image congruence is defined as the degree of perceived psychological match or consistency between an individual’s self-concept and the symbolic image or perceived personality of a brand (Sirgy, 1982). Within modern cognitive and social psychology, the self-concept is conceptualized as a multi-dimensional, dynamic cognitive schema comprising four core facets:

1. Actual Self-Image: How consumers realistically perceive themselves in daily reality.
2. Ideal Self-Image: How consumers aspire to perceive themselves or who they wish to become.
3. Social Self-Image: How consumers believe they are perceived by significant others.
4. Ideal Social Self-Image: How consumers desire to be perceived by significant social reference groups.

The Congruence (Self with Brand) construct synthesizes these distinct dimensions into an overall, subjective alignment. Rather than forcing an artificial separation between actual and ideal self-dimensions, the CON scale taps into the global holistic sensation of “fit”. When a brand exhibits high brand-self congruence, it signifies that the brand’s perceived human-like attributes (brand personality; Aaker, 1997) mirror or complement the focal consumer’s identity schema.

For example, a consumer who views their core identity as innovative, creative, and non-conformist will experience high brand-self congruence when interacting with a brand whose public meaning conveys identical values. Conversely, when there is cognitive dissonance between the user’s personal values and the brand’s cultural connotations, brand-self congruence approaches the lower anchors of the scale. This match fulfills fundamental psychological needs: the need for self-consistency (self-verification theory) and the need for self-enhancement.

Theoretical Framework

The Congruence (Self with Brand) scale is anchored in three primary theoretical traditions within psychology and consumer behavior:

1. Self-Congruity Theory

Formulated definitively by M. Joseph Sirgy (1982, 1986), Self-Congruity Theory posits that consumer behavior is partially determined by the cognitive comparison between the user’s self-schema and the stereotypic product-user image. Sirgy established that this cognitive matching process operates directly on consumer attitudes, brand preference, and purchase intentions. Sirgy et al. (1997) proved that direct holistic measures of congruence possess superior predictive validity over indirect semantic profile matching, providing the foundational theoretical justification for Breivik and Thorbjørnsen’s (2008) operationalization.

2. The Extended Self and Symbolic Interactionism

According to Russell Belk’s (1988) seminal formulation of the extended self, human beings consciously and unconsciously incorporate external possessions, brands, places, and activities into their personal narrative and self-definition. Drawing from symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1934), objects are endowed with shared symbolic meaning. A consumer does not merely own or utilize a brand; the brand acts as a communicative vehicle that projects the self to the internal ego and the external social matrix. Item 1 of the CON scale (“Using this brand says a lot about who I am”) explicitly operationalizes this symbolic interactionist mechanism.

3. Social Identity Theory

Rooted in Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s (1979) Social Identity Theory, individuals categorize themselves into social groups to maintain a positive self-evaluation. Brands frequently serve as symbolic markers of in-group membership or aspirations. When an individual perceives that other consumers who use the brand share their personal attributes, social identification occurs. Item 2 (“People similar to me use this brand”) measures the social-identity alignment dimension of self-congruence, capturing perceived in-group similarity.

Validity

Breivik and Thorbjørnsen (2008) subjected the Congruence (Self with Brand) scale to comprehensive empirical validation across two competing structural models of consumer-brand relationships, utilizing extensive empirical datasets across diverse product categories (including mobile telecommunications and online banking services).

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was verified via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). All standardized factor loadings (λ) for the three items exceeded the recommended psychometric threshold of .70, with individual loadings ranging between .81 and .92 (p < .001). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) substantially exceeded the .50 benchmark (AVE > .72), confirming that the construct captures considerably more shared item variance than random measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established against closely related relational constructs, including:

• Brand Relationship Quality (BRQ): Multi-faceted constructs encompassing commitment, intimacy, partner quality, and self-connection (Fournier, 1998).
• Brand Satisfaction: Evaluative post-consumption cognitive assessments.
• Brand Trust: Perceptions of brand reliability and benevolence.
• Brand Personality Attributes: Perceived functional and symbolic traits.

Applying the Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion, the square root of the AVE for the CON construct was greater than any bivariate correlation between CON and other latent factors in the structural models. Furthermore, nested chi-square difference tests (Δχ²) comparing a constrained model (where correlation between CON and adjoining constructs was fixed to 1.0) against an unconstrained model confirmed statistically significant superiority for the unconstrained solutions (p < .001), indicating that brand-self congruence occupies a distinct nomological space.

Nomological and Predictive Validity

Within structural equation models, the CON scale demonstrated robust predictive utility. High self-congruence significantly and positively predicted affective commitment, brand advocacy, resilience to negative brand information, and repurchase loyalty. Breivik and Thorbjørnsen (2008) demonstrated that congruence operates as a primary psychological driver facilitating the transition from transactional brand usage to deep, relationship-based consumer attachment.

Reliability

The Congruence (Self with Brand) scale displays exceptionally high internal consistency reliability across empirical consumer research samples. Published empirical evaluations indicate:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): Breivik and Thorbjørnsen (2008) reported Cronbach’s α values consistently exceeding .88 across diverse service and product contexts. Subsequent replications and related investigations have documented alpha coefficients typically falling between .86 and .93.
• Composite Reliability (CR): The composite reliability index calculated from CFA measurement models exceeded .89, demonstrating that the three items reliably reflect the single underlying latent variable without undue inflation.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-to-total correlations for each of the three items routinely surpass .70, confirming strong homogeneity across items.
• Stability Across Subsamples: Multigroup invariance testing indicates strict metric and scalar measurement invariance across gender cohorts, age groups, and product categories, underscoring the scale’s stability across distinct populations.

Factor Analysis

Both exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) corroborate the strict unidimensionality of the three-item instrument.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal Axis Factoring and Principal Component Analyses reveal a single dominant factor with an eigenvalue substantially greater than 1.0 (typically > 2.3), accounting for over 75% of the total variance across items. The scree plot indicates a sharp elbow after the first factor, confirming the absence of secondary dimensions.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In structural equation modeling frameworks, the measurement model for the Congruence (Self with Brand) construct demonstrates excellent model fit. Representative fit indices reported across validation studies consistently meet or exceed Hu and Bentler’s (1999) rigorous criteria:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): > .98
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): > .97
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): < .05 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning .00 to .07)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): < .03
• Relative Chi-Square (χ²/df): < 2.5

Standardized factor loadings for the individual manifest indicators are uniformly high:

• Item 1: “Using this brand says a lot about who I am” (λ ≈ .84 – .89)
• Item 2: “People similar to me use this brand” (λ ≈ .81 – .86)
• Item 3: “This brand fits with my personality” (λ ≈ .88 – .92)

Because a three-item single-factor model is just-identified (zero degrees of freedom) when evaluated in isolation, fit indices are derived when the construct is embedded in multi-construct measurement models alongside related brand relationship variables, where it exhibits excellent overall local and global fit.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Construct Measured: Brand-Self Congruence (Perceived similarity between brand image and personal self-concept).
• Developer / Authors: Einar Breivik and Helge Thorbjørnsen (2008).
• Administration Type: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized/online survey instrument.
• Target Population: Consumers, adolescents, and adults across commercial, digital, and retail sectors.
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Number of Items: 3 items.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale anchored from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).
• Reverse-Scored Items: None. All three items are positively keyed.
• Scoring and Index Calculation: Items are averaged or summed to generate an overall brand-self congruence composite score:
  • Mean Composite Score: Calculated by summing the three ratings and dividing by 3 (Score range: 1.00 to 7.00). Higher scores indicate higher perceived congruence between the self and the brand.
  • Summed Composite Score: Calculated by summing the three item values directly (Score range: 3 to 21).
  • Latent Variable Modeling: In SEM, items serve as continuous indicators for an underlying latent factor.
• Score Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Low Congruence (Mean < 3.00): Indicates symbolic alienation or psychological mismatch; the brand holds no perceived relevance to the individual’s identity.
  • Moderate Congruence (Mean 3.00 – 4.99): Represents neutral or utilitarian brand association; the brand is utilized without significant identity expression.
  • High Congruence (Mean ≥ 5.00): Reflects strong identity congruence, where the brand functions as an active component of the consumer’s extended self.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Congruence (Self with Brand) scale was published in 2008 in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science:

• Test Year: 2008.
• Accessibility & Academic Usage: The scale items are published in the open scientific literature. In accordance with academic fair use practices, the scale can be employed free of charge for non-commercial research, academic investigations, and institutional scholarly evaluations.
• Commercial Applications: Commercial market research firms or organizations seeking to incorporate the instrument into proprietary commercial diagnostic software should consult the copyright policies of the publisher (Springer Nature / Academy of Marketing Science) and provide appropriate attribution to Breivik and Thorbjørnsen (2008).

References

• Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400304
• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
• Breivik, E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2008). Consumer brand relationships: An investigation of two alternative models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 443–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0115-z
• Cronbach, L. J. (1958). Proposals leading to analytic treatment of social perception scores. In R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior (pp. 353–379). Stanford University Press.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1086/209515
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Malhotra, N. K. (1988). Self-concept and product choice: An integrated perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4870(88)90029-3
• Peter, J. P., Churchill, G. A., & Brown, T. J. (1993). Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 655–662. https://doi.org/10.1086/209329
• Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1086/208924
• 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(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070397253004
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Items of the Scale