The Connection between Self concept (Actual self Congruence & Ideal Self congruence) on Brand Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self concept has been a very important concept in consumer behavior and it gives the central idea to the Marketing people in the market place, Academician and business student to understand the bases to evaluate the self concept. The extensive previous research work gave very important conceptual answer to implement new marketing strategy. A different class of customer can be shot in the marketplace. These are the customers who buy product while evaluating the product self-image, product/brand image and their congruity and then they set their minds to buy the products in the market. The purpose of the research is to explore the self concept dimensions to examine the self congruity relationship with brand preference. Relationships between constructs (actual self congruity, ideal self congruity and brand preference) were hypothesized and data were collected through survey Method. The perceptions of 400 respondents about their self congruity with brand preference were obtained for two types of product usage (‘Mobile phone’ as conspicuous and ‘Bathing soaps’ as inconspicuous) with Seven brands in each type. The moderating role of ‘type of product usage (Conspicuous and inconspicuous)’ was examined in the relationship between actual/ideal self congruity and brand preference.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".