The life satisfaction process: The role of consumption centrality in life

Stephan Grzeskowiak

Assistant Professor of Marketing

NEOMA Business School, Rouen, France

Marie-Christine Lichtlé

Professeur des Universités

Université de Montpellier 1, MRM

Véronique Plichon *

Maître de conférences HDR

Université François-Rabelais de Tours, Université d’Orléans

VALLOREM EA 6296

Joseph Sirgy

Professor of Marketing

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

* Adresse postale : IUT, 29 rue du pont volant, 37 082 TOURS cedex 2, France, veronique.plichon@univ-

tours.fr, tél : 02.47.57.71.98

1

Le processus de satisfaction dans la vie : Le rôle de l’importance de la consommation d’un

produit ou service pour la vie quotidienne

Résumé:

Cet article analyse le processus de satisfaction dans la vie en prenant en compte une nouvelle

variable : l’importance de la consommation d’un produit ou service pour la vie quotidienne.

Après avoir étudié le lien entre cette variable et la satisfaction dans la vie, l’influence de deux de

ses antécédents sont étudiés : la congruence entre le concept de soi et l’expérience de service et

la congruence entre l’expérience de service et le style de vie. Deux études quantitatives

confirment l’effet de l’importance de la consommation d’un produit ou d’un service dans la vie

quotidienne sur la satisfaction dans la vie. Cette relation est modérée par la satisfaction à l’égard

de ce produit ou de ce service. De plus, la congruence entre le concept de soi et l’expérience de

service et la congruence entre l’expérience de service et le style de vie influencent bien

l’importance de ce même service dans la vie du consommateur.

Mots-clés : satisfaction dans la vie, qualité de vie, bien-être, congruence avec le style de vie,

self-congruence.

The life satisfaction process:

The role of consumption centrality in life

Abstract :

This article analyzes the life satisfaction process by integrating the concept of consumption

centrality in life. After studying the link between consumption centrality and life satisfaction, we

will focus on the two antecedents of consumption centrality. Two large-scale studies validate the

effect of consumption centrality on life satisfaction. This relation is moderated by customer

satisfaction. Moreover, consumer self-congruity with the service experience and consumer

lifestyle-congruity with the service experience are found to have an impact on consumption

centrality concept.

Key-words: life-satisfaction, quality-of-life, subjective well-being, lifestyle congruity, self-

congruity

2

Introduction

The role of marketing for consumers’ quality of life has interested many scholars (for an

overview of the literature see Sirgy, Meadow and Samli, 1995; Sirgy, 2001, 2008). One way in

which marketing influences consumers’ quality of life is through products’ impact on life

satisfaction (Day, 1978, 1987; Leelakulthanit, Day and Walters, 1991). Much research devoted

to the impact of products on consumer life satisfaction however focuses on products that have

intuitively positive (e.g., dieting, exercise, etc.) or negative (e.g., smoking, gambling, etc.)

consequences (e.g., Passyn and Sujan, 2006; Khare and Inman, 2006; Thompson and Troester,

2002). However, for most everyday products the outcomes of consumption may be less clear cut

and specific brands within a product category could have both a positive and negative impact on

life satisfaction.

Little is known about how everyday brands may vary in their impact on consumer life

satisfaction. This is an important gap in the literature because a common assumption in consumer

research holds that products or services generally contribute to life satisfaction because they

solve consumer problems—large and small. Research is needed to demonstrate how specific

products and associated consumption experiences impact consumer life satisfaction.

In consumer research, there is considerable evidence from research on materialism which shows

a negative impact of materialistic product acquisition and possession on life satisfaction (e.g.,

Richins and Dawson, 1992). Recent findings, however, indicate that the relationship between

materialistic product accumulation and life satisfaction depends on the consumer’s larger value

system (e.g., Hudders and Pandelaere, 2012). Here, the life satisfaction impact of a product

varies due to identity-related characteristics such as the degree to which one leads a material

lifestyle.

The link between product consumption and life satisfaction can be explained by another stream

of research. Findings from subjective well-being research support that congruence between one’s

identity and the specific behavior in which one is engaged can increase happiness (Diener & al.,

1999; Moskowitz and Cote, 1995). Here, consumption behaviors may help consumers shape or

transform one’s identity into some new desired form (Ahuvia, 2005). They support consumers in

their struggle to prioritize and align various life values (Rokeach 1968, 1973) and to integrate

different life values into a consistent whole that determines an individual’s identity (Sheldon and

3

Kasser, 1995). These findings suggest that if products are congruent with one’s identity they are

likely to enhance life satisfaction (Oropesa, 1995).

Building on these findings, this research develops a theoretical perspective to suggest that

consumption experiences that are central to consumers’ lives contribute more to life satisfaction

than those that are not. In fact, he relationship between centrality and life satisfaction has not

been studied yet. This centrality notion is conceptualized through the construct of consumption

centrality in life, the degree of importance of a brand-related consumption experience across a

variety of consumer life domains. In other words, the extent to which a product contributes to

consumer life satisfaction may depend on how central the consumption experience is in

consumers’ lives. Therefore, the aim of this article is to analyze the role of the centrality

concept by studying its link with life satisfaction and by finding its antecedents.

1. Conceptual Background

1.1 Consumption Centrality in Life, Customer Satisfaction, and Life Satisfaction

Life satisfaction refers to an individual’s evaluation of one’s life in terms of positive or negative

experiences that characterize it (Andrews & Withey, 1976). Here, the evaluation of satisfaction

across major life domains (e.g., social life, work life, health life or family life) determines life

satisfaction overall. For example, satisfaction from one shopping experience may spill over to

several life domains influencing satisfaction with social life, family life, financial life, etc.

Satisfaction across life domains then characterizes one’s overall life satisfaction. This

psychological process is referred to as bottom-up spillover in which affect related to life events

(most concrete) tend to spillover to affect embedded in the various life domains (middle range of

abstractness), which in turn influence overall life satisfaction (most abstract) (see literatures

reviews of bottom-up spillover theory in Diener, 1984).

The bottom-up spillover process is moderated by domain salience – the degree to which life

domains play an important role in ones’ life. Specifically, life domains that are highly salient are

likely to influence life satisfaction more than less salient domains. In relation to consumption

experiences, Nicolao, Irwin and Goodman (2009) find that the valence of a consumption

experience moderates its impact on life satisfaction. Here, a consumption experience would

induce life satisfaction only if it is highly salient to one or more life domains (e.g., social life,

4

leisure life, work life, family life, etc.). Product centrality in life captures the salience of a

product in consumers’ lives by tapping the importance of the consumption experience across life

domains. In other words, the more central a product is to one’s life, the more it is likely to impact

life satisfaction.

Satisfaction with a product is likely to influence how products that are salient in one or more life

domains impact life satisfaction. It spills over to salient life domains. Domain satisfaction, in

turn, affects overall life satisfaction. That is, if a consumer is satisfied with a product, the

positive affect derived from the product-related experience (in the life domains for which the

product is important) spills over unto life satisfaction. Life satisfaction is therefore likely to

increase if a product induces satisfaction in salient life domains. Vice versa, dissatisfaction with

a product in a salient life domain may reduce life satisfaction.

This discussion suggests that a product is likely to contribute most positively to life satisfaction

when two conditions are met. First, when the product contributes to important life domains (e.g.,

social- , leisure -, family-, and work-life that are central to life); and second, when the product

generates positive affect from the overall consumption experience. That is, life satisfaction can

be enhanced when products that are central to life induce high levels of satisfaction. As such, the

following hypothesis will be tested:

Hypothesis 1: Consumption centrality in life contributes to life satisfaction as moderated by

customer satisfaction. Specifically, to the extent that customer satisfaction with a product is

high (low), consumption centrality in life will have a positive (negative) influence on life

satisfaction.

1.2 Self-Congruity, Lifestyle Congruity, and Consumption Centrality in Life

Products that reflect a part of consumers’ identity (i.e., congruent with the consumers’ self-

concept and lifestyle) are likely to be perceived as playing a more central role in consumers’ life

(i.e., high in product centrality in life). This centrality notion is consistent with the premise that

“we are what we have” and that possessions become part of the self (Belk, 1988). Although

identity issues may not be the only source of motivation for consumption they are likely to be

central and some consumption experiences may help us create a meaningful life.

5

For example, consumers use possessions not only to express themselves (i.e., making visible

internal dispositions, preferences, and impulses) but also to transform the self into some new,

desired form (Ahuvia, 2005). These forms of identity expression and demonstration through

daily consumption activities can be captured by the concepts of self- and lifestyle congruity.

Here, self-congruity reflects consumer identity in terms of consumers’ ability to use their sense

of self to discover their true preferences, navigate choice, and represent their identity – both to

oneself and others – through brands or products (Ahuvia, 2005). Lifestyle congruity reflects

consumer identity in terms of consumers’ ability to realize and maintain a pattern of

consumption behavior that is consistent with one’s identity. Thus, both self- and lifestyle

congruity are two facets that reflect the degree to which consumption experiences are consistent

with consumer identity.

Taking the view of the consumer identity as a set of attributes (self-images) that are linked in

memory to key episodes in consumer’s life strung together to form a story (Ahuvia, 2005),

consumers are likely to place importance on those consumption experiences that represent their

identity because they become part of their personal story line. For example, consumers who act

based on high self-awareness are found to rely on their personal, idiosyncratic preferences for

brand choice and are less inclined to select compromise options (Goukens, DeWitte and Warlop,

2009). Similarly, Escalas and Bettman (2005) have observed that it is the discovery of one’s true

consumption preferences and the representation of one’s identity through consumption that is a

fundamental concern for consumers.

Much research in consumer involvement has shown that if a brand image, the value symbolism

inherent in it, and the needs it serves are congruent with the consumer’s self-image and lifestyle

it is more likely to instill a sense of involvement (Kressmann & al., 2006). Gross and Brown

(2006) showed that tourists’ level of involvement in the destination is directly related to the

extent to which the destination image is congruent with their self-concept and their lifestyle.

Therefore, both self-congruity and lifestyle congruity can be viewed as important determinants

of consumption centrality in life. As such, the following hypotheses will be tested:

Hypothesis 2: Self-congruity has a positive influence on consumption centrality in life.

Hypothesis 3: Lifestyle congruity has a positive influence on consumption centrality in life.

6

Figure 1: The research model

2. Study 1

2.1 Method

To test the research model (Figure 1), study 1 employs an experimental design that instructed

respondents to report their anticipated life satisfaction while manipulating customer satisfaction,

self-congruity, and lifestyle congruity (Appendix A). Participants included 553 French senior

citizens from a mid-size French city who agreed to participate in this study1. A 2 x 2 x 2

between-subjects experimental design was used to manipulate the level of customer satisfaction,

self-congruity, and lifestyle congruity. At the beginning of the experimental session, respondents

were asked to read a scenario about a retirement home and imagine how their life would be like

in this retirement home. There were eight between-subjects conditions with equal cell size:

satisfaction with the retirement home, self-congruity, and lifestyle congruity were either high or

low. Life satisfaction was measured using the formative Satisfaction with Life Domains scale

(Lee, Sirgy, Wright, and Larsen, 2002). The construct of consumption centrality in life of the

retirement home was measured by a set of items capturing the perception of importance of the

retirement home in social-, leisure-, health-, and marital- (love-) life. Customer satisfaction was

measured using satisfaction scales that tap into the affect that underlies satisfaction with an

1 Respondents were randomly drawn from the phone register of this region. An initial phone call was

placed to identify those respondents who were at least 60 years old and not currently living in a retirement home.

Then appointments for personal interviews were arranged with respondents that fulfilled this criterion and were

willing to participate in the study. After each interview, respondents were asked to provide the contact information

of individuals who may also be willing to participate in the study and who fulfilled the selection criteria. Here

respondents were selected to ensure an equal gender distribution across experimental conditions.

7

anticipated consumption experience (Mano & Oliver, 1993). For the self-congruity measure,

respondents were asked “How do you see the typical resident of this type of retirement home?”.

The lifestyle congruity measure was adapted from John, Loken and Joiner (1998). See Appendix

B for the exact measures.

2.2 Results

All measures of the reflective constructs were tested using CFA. The results show that the model

fits well (χ²/df = 2.161, IFI = .99, TLI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .046) and provide support for

the measures’ reliability and validity. Specifically, all items loaded significantly on their

respective constructs providing support for the convergent validity of the measurement items. In

addition, composite reliability for all measures was above .90 exceeding the threshold of .70

(Hair & al., 2011). Similarly, the amount of variance extracted for each construct was found to

be acceptable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), thus providing support for convergent validity (Hair

& al., 2011).

To assess the discriminant validity of the constructs, two approaches were applied. The first

analysis involved examining the indicators’ cross loadings, which revealed that no indicator

loads higher on any opposing construct (Hair & al., 2011). Second, the Fornell and Larcker

(1981) criterion was applied by comparing the square root of the constructs’ AVEs with the

construct correlations. This analysis shows that each construct shares more variance with its own

block of indicators than with another construct representing a different block of indicators. Thus,

both approaches provide support for the constructs’ discriminant validity.

A serious issue to the validity of formative constructs is multicollinearity among measurement

items. Here, the largest variance inflation factor for life satisfaction is 2.00 and 1.59 for

centrality in life of the retirement home. Neither exceed the suggested threshold of 5 for

multicollinearity (Hair & al., 2011).

To test external validity a global measure was used that summarized the focal domain of the

formative constructs (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). High correlations of each

construct with a variable in its conceptual domain provide evidence of external validity (Jarvis,

Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003). Here, life satisfaction correlated significantly with the question

“What do you think about your life in general?” in relation to the retirement home scenario

8

(p < .01). Similarly, centrality in life of the retirement home correlated significantly (p < .01)

with the question “How important is the retirement home in regards to your life in general?”

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is used to estimate the research

model (Hair & al., 2013), because it is well suited to estimate research models that include

formative indicators (Ringle & al., 2005). To test the interaction hypothesis, a nested model

approach was used that estimates the direct effects model and the moderated model separately

(e.g., Baron and Kenny, 1986). See Table 1 for the results of both models.

Table 1: PLS-SEM Model Results (Study 1 and Study 2) (standardized loadings)

Independent variable Study 1 Study 2

Dependent variable: Life satisfaction

Direct

relationship

Moderated

relationship

Direct

relationship

Moderated

relationship

Consumption centrality in Life 0.21*** 0.02 0.42*** 0.318***

Customer satisfaction 0.58*** -0.066

[H1] Consumption centrality in life x Customer

satisfaction

0.10* 0.137+

Dependent Variable: Consumption Centrality in Life

[H2] Self-congruity 0.16* 0.19*** 0.356***

[H3] Lifestyle congruity 0.12* 0.10* 0.177**

Control variables for consumption centrality in life

Attitude 0.092 0.069

Information 0.013 -0.033

Gender 0.076 0.062 0.002

Age -0.050 0.064 -0.251***

Type of Use -0.046

Note: *** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ .01, * p ≤ .05, based on 2,500 bootstraps, + significant when tertile split is used.

With regard to Hypothesis 1, a two-step approach was used to calculate the interaction effect

(Chin & al., 2003). The results show a significant moderating effect of customer satisfaction (p <

.05) on the relationship between brand centrality in life and life satisfaction (Henseler & Chin,

9

2010). In addition, the power of the moderating effect of customer satisfaction on the focal

relationship was f 2= .49, indicating a strong effect (Chin & al., 2003). The decomposition of this

interaction illustrates this interaction graphically (Figure 2). To further examine this moderating

effect the high and low satisfaction treatment groups are compared. Here the consumption

centrality in life to life satisfaction path coefficients (βlow = -.27, p < .01; βhigh = .31, p < .01) are

found to be significantly different (∆=.59, p<.01) supporting Hypothesis 1.

study 1 study 2

Figure 2: Interaction Plots

Hypotheses 2 and 3 predict a positive relationship between lifestyle congruity and brand

centrality in life, and between self-congruity and brand centrality in life. The results support both

hypotheses (p<.05). The results (Table 1) further show that consumption centrality in life

significantly influences life satisfaction (β = .21, p<.01).

3. Study 2

3.1 Method

Internet shopping as product stimulus was used to test the generalizability of the experimental

results of Study 1. In contrast to the research context in Study 1 that was confined to one brand

and therefore may be limited in its impact on life satisfaction, an exploratory study with 45

10

consumers across various ages, income levels, and life phases identified internet shopping as a

commonly used marketing channel with a variety of brands that impact many different consumer

life domains. Internet use in general has also been found in previous studies to impact life

satisfaction (e.g., Sirgy, Lee, & Bae, 2006). Further, in contrast to Study 1, respondents in Study

2 report on their actual internet shopping experience.

426 individuals were prompted to focus on their most recent internet shopping experience. Study

constructs were measured using similar measures as Study 12. The following modifications were

made. To comprehensively capture the impact of the new study context on life satisfaction six

additional life domains were measured: satisfaction with family life, professional life, education

life, financial life, cultural life, and consumer life. The concept of consumption centrality in life

was measured using the extended life domains that were used for the life satisfaction measure.

Customer satisfaction was measured with Mattila and Wirtz (2001) scale. Study 1 captured

actual self-congruity (match between the personality image of the retirement home and the

respondent’s actual self-image). Besides the actual self, other dimensions of the self-concept are

often measured: ideal self, social self and ideal social self (Sirgy, 1982). To capture these

dimensions, the self-congruity measure was extended to include all four dimensions of self-

congruity. See Appendix C for the exact measures.

3.2 Results

Using the same procedure as in Study 1, the CFA for Study 2 shows an acceptable fit (χ²/df =

3.159, IFI = .95, TLI = .93, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .07). The constructs of customer satisfaction

and self-congruity showed good reliability (customer satisfaction: AVE=58.17%; CR=.81; self-

congruity: AVE=65.57%; CR=.95) While the lifestyle congruity measure (AVE=66.96%;

CR=.63) did not meet the suggested threshold (CR = .70; Hair & al., 2011), the Fornell-Larcker

criterion for discriminant validity is met for all constructs. The largest VIF among scale items of

2 Respondents were randomly drawn from the phone register of this region in France. An initial phone call

was placed to solicit participation in the study and to determine how recently the respondent had used the internet to

shop. Those respondents who indicated that their last internet shopping experience was not within the last 30 days

were excluded. A total of 100 appointments for personal interviews were made with respondents who agreed to

participate in the study. Once the interview was completed, respondents were asked to identify five individuals who

might also be willing to participate in the study. These individuals were then contacted by telephone and their

participation was formally solicited. Again a screening question was used and personal interviews were arranged for

those who agreed to participate. This snowballing procedure resulted in a final sample size of 426 respondents.

11

formative indicators of life satisfaction and consumption centrality in life is VIF = 1.74 and does

not exceed the suggested threshold of VIF = 5.00 indicating an acceptable level of

multicollinearity among scale items.

For the structural Equation Model, we apply the same procedure as in Study 1, a direct effects

and a moderated model are estimated separately (Baron and Kenny, 1986). The data provides

partial support for the research model. Consistent with the analysis in Study 1, the hypothesized

interaction effect [H1] was tested using the latent variable scores. The results (table 1) show a

non-significant interaction effect rejecting Hypothesis 1. However, non-significant interaction

effects can also be meaningful (Aguinis and Gottfredson, 2010). Given the large path coefficient

of the interaction term, the moderating effect can be decomposed as shown in Figure 1. The

pattern shown in the figure, although not statistically significant, clearly supports the

hypothesized interaction effect (i.e., consumption centrality in life is more strongly linked with

life satisfaction under high than low customer satisfaction conditions). Finally, the results

support Hypotheses 2 and 3. Specifically, lifestyle congruity (β=.18, p<.01) and self-congruity

(β=.36, p<.01) are found to positively impact consumption centrality in life.

4. Discussion

The study 2 results largely confirmed Study 1 findings. In particular, self-congruity and lifestyle

congruity consistently increase the experience of consumption centrality in life. The data show

that those consumption experiences that are central to consumers’ lives also tend to make a

positive difference in their lives. In contrast to Study 1, only directional (not statistical) support

for the moderating role of customer satisfaction in the internet shopping context was found. An

analysis of the distribution of the customer satisfaction variable in Study 2 indicates that few

respondents expressed dissatisfaction with internet purchase experiences. Given that a skewed

distribution may bias the results of the interaction estimate, a follow-up analysis using a tercile-

split of customer satisfaction (a dichotomous variable grouping respondents into an upper and

lower third according to customer satisfaction) was conducted. Only under conditions of high

customer satisfaction does consumption centrality in life enhance life satisfaction. In other

words, these results suggest that products that are central to consumers’ lives only make a

positive difference in life satisfaction if consumers are satisfied with their consumption

experience.

12

Conclusion

Consumption centrality in life is a concept that connects product-related experiences to

something that matters a great deal: the life satisfaction impact of consumption. Focusing on

consumption centrality in life could have a profound impact on marketing research and practice.

First, an emphasis on consumption centrality in life should enable marketers to place more

weight on designing products that become central to consumers’ lives. Such a shift in focus may

not only benefit manufacturers due to an increased customer loyalty for products that offer

superior life satisfaction impact. It could also change the way products are distributed because

focusing on products with high consumption centrality in life may streamline assortment depth

and increase shopping convenience. Further, product promotion may benefit from heightened

consumer involvement for messages about brands that are central to consumers’ lives and

consumer willingness to engage in reciprocal communication. Second, the findings show that

products with low consumption centrality in life do not appear to improve life satisfaction –

independent of whether consumers are satisfied with the consumption experience or not. Here,

future research may also investigate the motivational drivers for products with low consumption

centrality in life. Although marketing scholars have developed frameworks for understanding

why consumers may engage in consumption with inherently negative consequences, this research

may not explain why consumers engage in consumption that is neutral to their life satisfaction.

Third, this research has focused on consumer identity as a key antecedent to consumption

centrality in life. However, it is likely that other antecedents also influence the perceived

importance of a product in one’s live. Finally, consumption centrality in life could serve as a

performance indicator similar to customer loyalty. It may have the advantage that it reflects a

deeper connection between product and consumer than traditional measures of re-purchase

intent, such as product involvement and product engagement.

References

Aguinis H. et Gottfredson R. K. (2010), Best-practice recommendations for estimating

interaction effects using moderated multiple regression, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31,

776-786.

13

Ahuvia A.C. (2005), Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers’ identity

narratives, Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 171-184.

Andrews F. M. et Withey S. B. (1976), Social indicators of well-being: America’s perception of

quality of life, New York: Plenum.

Baron R.M. et Kenny D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Belk R. (1988), Possessions and the extended self, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168.

Chin W.W., Marcolin B. L. et Newsted P. R. (2003), A partial least squares latent variable

modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a monte carlo simulation

study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study, Information System Research, 14, 189-217.

Day R.L. (1978), Beyond social indicators: Quality of life at the individual level, In F. D.

Reynolds et H. C. Barksdale (Coord.), Marketing and the quality of life (pp. 11-18). Chicago,

IL: American Marketing Association.

Day R.L. (1987), Relationships between life satisfaction and consumer satisfaction, In A.C.

Samli (Coord.), Marketing and quality-of-life Interface (pp. 289-311), Westport, CT: Quorum

Books.

Diamantopoulos A. et Winklhofer, H.M. (2001), Index construction with formative indicators:

An alternative to scale development, Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269-277.

Diener E. (1984), Subjective well-being, Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.

Diener E., Suh E. M., Lucas R.E. et Smith H.L. (1999), Subjective well-being: Three decades of

progress, Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.

Escalas J.E. et Bettman J.R. (2005), Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning,

Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 378-88.

Fornell C. et Larcker D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

Gouskens C., DeWitte S. et Warlop L. (2009), Me, myself, and my choices: The influence of

private self-awareness on choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 682-692.

Gross M.J. et Brown G. (2006), Tourism experiences in a lifestyle destination setting: The roles

of involvement and place attachment, Journal of Business Research, 59, 696-700.

14

Hair J.F., Ringle C.M. et Sarstedt M. (2011), PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet, Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139-151.

Hair J.F., Hult G.T.M., Ringle C.M. et Sarstedt M. (2013), A primer on partial least squares

structural equation modeling, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hensler J. et Chin W.W. (2010), A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction

effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling, Structural Equation

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17, 82-109.

Hudders L. et Pandelaere M. (2012), The silver lining of materialism: the impact of luxury

consumption on subjective well-being, Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 411-37

Jarvis C. B., Mackenzie S.B. et Podsakoff P.M. (2003), A critical review of construct indicators

and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research, Journal of

Consumer Research, 30, 199-218.

John D., Loken B. et Joiner C. (1998), The negative impact of extensions: Can flagship products

be diluted? Journal of Marketing, 62, 19-32.

Khare A. et Inman J. J. (2006), Habitual behaviors in American eating patterns: The role of meal

occasions, Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 567-579.

Kressmann F., Sirgy M.J., Herrmann A., Huber F., Huber S. et Lee, D.J. (2006), Direct and

indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty, Journal of Business Research, 59,

955-964.

Lee D.J., Sirgy M.J., Wright N.D. et Larsen V. (2002), Developing a subjective measure of

consumer well-being, Journal of Macromarketing, 22, 158-169.

Leelakulthanit O., Day R. et Walters R.G. (1991), Investigating the relationship between

marketing and overall satisfaction with life in a developing country, Journal of Macromarketing,

11, 3-23.

Mano H. et Oliver R.L. (1993), Assessing the Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption

Experience: Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 3, 451-66.

Mattila, A et Wirtz, J. (2001), Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store evaluations

and behavior, Journal of Retailing, 77, 289-93.

Moskowitz D.S. et Côté S. (1995), Do interpersonal traits predict affect? A comparison of three

models, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 915‐24.

15

Nicolao L., Irwin J.R. et Goodman J.K. (2009), Happiness for sale: Do experimental purchases

make consumers happier than material purchases? Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 188-198.

Nunnally J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric theory, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Oropesa R.S. (1995), Consumer possessions, consumer passions, and subjective well-being,

Sociological Forum, 10, 215-244.

Passyn K. and Sujan M. (2006), Self-accountability emotions and fear appeals: Motivating

factor, Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 583-589.

Richins M.L. et Dawson S. (1992), A consumer values orientation for materialism and its

measurement: Scale development and validation, Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303–316.

Ringle C.M., Wende S.et Will A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) beta [Online]. Available:

http://www.smartpls.de.

Rokeach M.A. (1968), A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems,

Journal of Social Issues, 24, 13–33.

Rokeach M.A. (1973), The nature of human values, New York: Free Press.

Sheldon K.M. et Kasser T. (1995), Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality

integration, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531–543.

Sirgy M.J. (1982), Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review, Journal of Consumer

Research, 9, 287-300.

Sirgy M.J. (2001), Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing perspective,

Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sirgy M.J. (2008), Ethics and public policy implications of consumer well-being (CWB)

research, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 27, 207-212.

Sirgy M.J. (2012), The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and

eudaimonia. 2nd

edition. New York: Springer.

Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D-J., & Bae, J. (2006), Developing a measure of Internet well-being:

Nomological (predictive) validation, Social Indicators Research, 78, 205-249.

Sirgy M.J., Meadow H.L. et Samli A.C. (1995), Past, present, and future: An overview of

quality-of-life research in marketing, In M.J. Sirgy et A.C. Samli (Coord.), New dimensions in

marketing/quality-of-life research (pp. 335-364), Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

16

Thompson C.J. et Troester M. (2002), Consumer value systems in the age of postmodern

fragmentation: The case of the natural microculture, Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 550-

575.

17

Appendix A

Experimental Conditions of Study 1

Customer Satisfaction Conditions

High. You just moved in into a retirement home.

Now you are sitting in your room and reflecting

on the quality of the retirement home. You have

been quite happy with the cleanliness of the

rooms, the meals are well-prepared and taste

good, and the personnel have been very helpful

and friendly.

Low. You just moved in into a retirement home.

Now you are sitting in your room and reflecting

on the quality of the retirement home. You have

not been happy with the cleanliness of the

rooms, the meals were not well-prepared and did

not taste good, and the personnel have not been

very helpful or friendly.

Self-Congruity Conditions

High. You have met a number of other residents

in the retirement home. The good news is that

they appeared to be similar to you in many

respects (age, ethnicity, socio-economic status,

background, etc.).

Low. You have met a number of other residents

in the retirement home. The bad news is that

they did not appear to be similar to you in many

respects (age, ethnicity, socio-economic status,

background, etc.).

Lifestyle Congruity Conditions

High. Also, the retirement home provides you

with the opportunity to continue your hobbies

like you used to. It is also located conveniently

so that you can continue your social life in the

community.

Low. Also, the retirement home did not appear

to provide you with the opportunity to continue

your hobbies like you used to. Also, it is not

located conveniently so that you can continue

your social life in the community.

18

Appendix B

Measures of Study 1 Constructs

Life Satisfaction (formative measure; 5-point satisfaction rating scale)

How would you feel about your life in this retirement home?

a. Your social life

b. Your leisure life

c. Your health

d. Your marital (or love) life

Consumption Centrality in Life (formative measure; 5-point importance rating scale)

How important would the retirement home be to you in regard to the following areas of your life?

a. Your social life

b. Your leisure life

c. Your health

d. Your marital (or love) life

Customer Satisfaction (AVE = .86; ρ = .96; 5-point agreement rating scale)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of these statements?

a. I would truly enjoy living at this type of retirement home.

b. I would feel quite satisfied living at this type of retirement home.

c. I would be very satisfied with this type of retirement home.

d. I would always feel good in this retirement home.

Self-Congruity (AVE = .81; ρ = .93; 5-point agreement rating scale)

How do you see the typical resident of this type of retirement home?

a. They are like me.

b. I can identify with them.

c. I see myself as the same.

Lifestyle congruity (AVE = .84; ρ = .95; 5-point semantic differential scale)

Please indicate how you think living at this type of retirement home would compare to your lifestyle?

a. Consistent - Inconsistent

b. Similar - Different

c. Representative - Unrepresentative

d. Typical - Atypical

NOTE: AVE = Average Variance Extracted; ρ = Composite Reliability

19

Appendix C

Measures of Study 2 Constructs

Life Satisfaction (formative measure; 5-point satisfaction rating scale)

What do you think of your life now?

a. Your social life

b. Your family life

c. Your leisure life

d. Your professional life

e. Your education

f. Your health

g. Your love life

h. Your financial situation

i. Your cultural life

j. Your consumer life

Consumption Centrality in Life (formative measure; 5-point importance rating scale)

How important is the Internet to you in regard to the following areas of your life:

a. Your social life

b. Your family life

c. Your leisure life

d. Your professional life

e. Your education

f. Your health

g. Your love life

h. Your financial situation

i. Your cultural life

j. Your consumer life

Customer Satisfaction (AVE = .53; ρ = .80; 7-point Likert-type scale)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of these statements?

a. I am satisfied with the Internet.

b. It is a good decision to use the Internet for a variety of purposes.

c. I am disappointed with the use of the Internet. (reverse coded)*

d. It was a good idea to start using the Internet on a regular basis.

e. I am unhappy using the Internet. (reverse coded)*

Self-Congruity (AVE = .66; ρ = .95; 5-point agreement rating scale)

How do you see the typical internet shopper at this type of store?

a. They are like me.*

b. I can identify with them.

c. I see myself as the same.

d. They are like the person that I like to be.

e. I aspire to be like them.

f. I like to see myself as similar to them.

g. They are very much like the kind of person I am known to be.

h. People who know me would say that I am very similar to them.

i. Others see me as a typical shopper at this type of store.*

j. I want others to think of me like them.

20

k. I aspire to have others think of me as similar to them.

l. They match how I like others to see me.

m. Their image is consistent with the kind of image I like to present of myself.

Lifestyle Congruity (AVE = .67; ρ = .63; 5-point semantic differential scale)

Please indicate how using the Internet matches your lifestyle. Using the Internet is:

a. Consistent with my lifestyle - Inconsistent with my lifestyle

b. Similar to my lifestyle - Different from my lifestyle

c. Representative of my lifestyle - Unrepresentative of my lifestyle

d. Typical of my lifestyle - Atypical of my lifestyle

NOTE: AVE = Average Variance Extracted; ρ = Composite Reliability; *indicates item deletion.