The Diderot Effect, Product Bundling and Self-Image Congruence in Apparel Consumption: A Thematic Review with a Focus on Working Women

Consumer decisions about clothing are influenced by multiple factors rather than by a single motive. This paper presents a structured thematic review that brings together four areas of research that are usually examined independently: the Diderot effect, product bundling, self-image congruence, and the apparel consumption behaviour of working women. Drawing on Scopus-indexed articles, book chapters and encyclopaedia entries spanning 2010–2026, the review examines how the Diderot effect has evolved from a completion-driven “trading-up” mechanism to its recent “digital” form, where algorithmic recommendation and online platforms intensify successive consumption. The review then examines product bundling from both economic and psychological perspectives, considering factors such as diversification benefits, channel conflict, and quality signalling, as well as the influence of framing, cognitive load, perceived complementarity, and self-relevance. The literature on self-image congruence highlights a consistent finding that congruence between a consumer's actual or ideal self and a brand's or store's image influences apparel-related purchase intention, patronage and brand loyalty. The fourth area focuses on working women as a distinct and growing apparel-consuming segment whose choices are shaped by income, personality, professional identity and in some cases, functional or physical needs. The discussion section identifies a conceptual gap as there is limited study examining how identity-driven completion motives (Diderot effect), bundling strategy, and self-image congruence interact specifically in the clothing decisions of working women. A synthesis and future research agenda are proposed based on these findings.

Diderot effect, product bundling, self-image congruence, working women, apparel consumption

1. Arora, R. (2011). Bundling or unbundling frequently purchased products: A mixed method approach. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761111101967 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bajwa, R. K. (2012). Brands preference in clothing among college going girls of Chandigarh. Textile Trends, 55(8), 53–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Başar, E. E., Türk, B., & Ünal, S. (2015). An investigation of self-image congruence differences between materialistic and non-materialistic consumers. Bogazici Journal, 29(2), 41–57. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://doi.org/10.21773/boun.29.2.3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barnes, L., Lea-Greenwood, G., Zarley Watson, M., & Yan, R.-N. (2013). An exploratory study of the decision processes of fast versus slow fashion consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-02-2011-0045 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Beladev, M., Rokach, L., & Shapira, B. (2016). Recommender systems for product bundling. Knowledge-Based Systems, 111, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2016.08.013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bhargava, H. K. (2012). Retailer-driven product bundling in a distribution channel. Marketing Science, 31(6), 1014–1021. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1120.0725 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cao, Q., Tang, Y., Perera, S., & Zhang, J. (2022). Manufacturer- versus retailer-initiated bundling: Implications for the supply chain. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 157, Article 102552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102552 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Carroll, K., & Gross, K. (2010). An examination of clothing issues and physical limitations in the product development process. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 39(1), 2–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-3934.2010.02041.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Carroll, K. A., Samek, A., & Zepeda, L. (2022). Consumer preference for food bundles under cognitive load: A grocery shopping experiment. Foods, 11(7), Article 973. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11070973 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Chang, S.-W., & Fan, S.-H. (2017). Cultivating the brand-customer relationship in Facebook fan pages: A study of fast-fashion industry. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 45(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-05-2016-0076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Choudhary, P., & Kashyap, R. (2019). Impact of personality type on apparel buying behaviour of working women. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 8(11), 937–941. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Dai, B., & Pelton, L. E. (2018). Exploring consumers’ skincare retail patronage. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.04.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Dana, J. D., Jr. (2020). Bundling can signal high quality. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 69, Article 102579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2020.102579 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Heo, Y., Pedersen, Z. P., Williams, A. S., & Byon, K. K. (2023). An examination of consumer’s brand loyalty and purchase intention toward collaborations in the sport brand footwear industry. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 32(4), 320–331. https://doi.org/10.32731/SMQ.324.122023.04 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Heo, Y., Williams, A. S., & Byon, K. K. (2026). Understanding sport product collaborations through the lens of limited editions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 35(3), 283–298. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. https://doi.org/10.1177/10616934261433627 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Khan, A., Kashyap, R., & Shakyawr, D. B. (2020). Subjective wear trial of wool and blended wool apparel for sensorial comfort. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(3), 1598–1600. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Khare, A., Mishra, A., & Parveen, C. (2012). Influence of collective self esteem on fashion clothing involvement among Indian women. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(1), 42–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612021211203023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kim, H., & Yoon, S. O. (2026). Overcoming monotony: How consumption matching increases appeal for repeat-use products. Psychology and Marketing, 43(4), 782–794. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.70086 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Klabi, F. (2020). To what extent do conspicuous consumption and status consumption reinforce the effect of self-image congruence on emotional brand attachment? Evidence from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 8(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00073-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kobuszewki Volles, B., Ribbers, D., Van Kerckhove, A., & Geuens, M. (2024). Beyond bundles: Choosing product bundles increases shopping basket size. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 81, Article 104035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Li, Z., & Han, S. (2025). Framing the unlikely pair: “Free gifts” heuristic in evaluation of non-complementary product bundles. Behavioral Sciences, 15(9), Article 1168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091168 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lorenzen, J. A. (2015). Diderot effect. In The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of consumption and consumer studies. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118989463.wbeccs095 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Mikkonen, K., Niskanen, H., Pynnönen, M., & Hallikas, J. (2015). The presence of emotional factors: An empirical exploration of bundle purchasing process. Telecommunications Policy, 39(8), 642–657. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.05.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Özkan, P., & Kocakoç, I. D. (2026). The digital Diderot effect: Ecosystem dependence, consumption cycles, and life satisfaction. In Unlocking life satisfaction in digital global markets and segments (pp. 237–269). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-8357-6.ch010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Page, D. (2020). The academic as consumed and consumer. Journal of Education Policy, 35(5), 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1598585 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Pandey, P. K., & Bajpai, N. (2025). Investigating the linkages between brand attributes, self-image congruence and cause-related marketing purchase intention in the fashion industry. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-08-2024-0297 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Park, H., Kwon, J., & Bagchi, R. (2024). Is “4 for $16” better than “4 for $15.30”? The price divisibility effect in multipack purchases. Journal of Consumer Research, 51(3), 455–473. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad071 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Rajagopal, & Rajagopal, A. (2023). ‘Seeing is experiencing’: Impact of showcasing fashion merchandise on digital platforms. Qualitative Market Research, 26(3), 214–231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-05-2022-0080 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Rajput, N., Kesharwani, S., & Khanna, A. (2012). Understanding consumer behavior in an organized retail sector: Indian apparel industry. Innovative Marketing, 8(2), 17–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Santos, A., António, N., & Rita, P. (2026). The Diderot effect: A data-driven validation. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 14(2), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-024-00371-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Sett, R. (2014). A product and a price bundle in an efficient choice set: How do choice framing and goal orientation influence preferences? Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679220304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Şen Doğan, R. (2025). The effect of materialism on impulsive buying: The mediating role of the Diderot effect. Behavioral Sciences, 15(10), Article 1403. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15101403 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Sirgy, M. J. (2018). Self-congruity theory in consumer behavior: A little history. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 28(2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2018.1436981 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Strelets, I. A. (2017). Multiplier effects in networks. World Economy and International Relations, 61(6), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-6-77-83 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Sung, E., & Huddleston, P. (2018). Department vs discount retail store patronage: Effects of self-image congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 35(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2016-1686 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Ünal, Z. B. (2010). An investigation about effect of income level to cloth purchase behaviour of working women. Tekstil, 59(5), 175–185. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Wäppling, A., Strugnell, C., & Farley, H. (2010). Product bundling strategies in Swedish markets: Links to business orientation and perceived effects on consumer influence. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00827.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Willems, K., Swinnen, G., Janssens, W., & Brengman, M. (2011). Fashion store personality: Scale development and relation to self-congruity theory. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 2(2), 55–65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2011.10593083 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Ye, G., Priem, R. L., & Alshwer, A. A. (2012). Achieving demand-side synergy from strategic diversification: How combining mundane assets can leverage consumer utilities. Organization Science, 23(1), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0627 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Yeap, J. A. L., Ramayah, T., & Yapp, E. H. T. (2018). Key drivers of brand loyalty among Malaysian shoppers: Evidence from a Japanese fashion retailer. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2018.23.2.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Yin, Q., Jiang, B., & Zhou, S. X. (2023). Effects of consumers’ context-dependent preferences on product bundling. Production and Operations Management, 32(6), 1674–1691. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13932 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Yu, H. Y., Robinson, G. M., & Lee, D. (2021). To partner or not? A study of co-branding partnership and consumers’ perceptions of symbolism and functionality toward co-branded sport products. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 22(4), 677–698. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-02-2020-0018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Vig, S., & Tewary, T. (2026). Eco-consciousness and self-image congruence as predictors of circular purchase intention among young Indian consumers. Discover Sustainability, 7(1), Article 24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03043-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Dark Patterns through a Consumer Ethics Lens: Perceived Unethicality, Platform Trust Erosion, and Behavioural Intentions in Digital Markets
• Bridging the Attitude–Behaviour Gap: An AI-Driven Personalization Framework for Climate-Conscious Marketing in Developing Economies
• Crafting Narratives: Digital Storytelling and the Conveyance of Cultural Significance in Indian Artisan Ventures