Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion Vincent-Wayne Mitchell, City University of London Gianfranco Walsh, University of Strathclyde Mo Yamin, University of Manchester ABSTRACT - As consumers are provided with ever-increasing amounts of information from more products sold through more channels and promoted in more ways, the notion of marketplace confusion is becoming increasingly important. From the extant literature, we propose and define three types of confusion resulting from brand similarity, information load, and misleading or ambiguous information. This latter type can be regarded as an 'altered knowledge state' in which a revision of understanding occurs. We argue that confusion should be conceptualized as a state variable and that existing confusion measures have focused solely on the behavioral and cognitive outcomes of confusion, ignoring the role of affect which is also a part of confusion. The paper is the first to discuss the consequences of confusion and elaborate on consumer confusion-reducing strategies. It concludes with some research implications of the new conceptualization. [to cite]: Vincent-Wayne Mitchell, Gianfranco Walsh, and Mo Yamin (2005) ,"Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 32, eds. Geeta Menon and Akshay R. Rao, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 143-150. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/9058/volumes/v32/NA-32 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion Vincent-Wayne Mitchell, City University of London Gianfranco Walsh, University of Strathclyde Mo Yamin, University of Manchester ABSTRACT Hawker’ whisky). Similarity in advertisements and commercial As consumers are provided with ever-increasing amounts of messages can also cause this type of confusion (e.g., Kent and Allen information from more products sold through more channels and 1994; Poiesz and Verhallen 1989). We define brand similarity promoted in more ways, the notion of marketplace confusion is confusion as: ‘a lack of understanding and potential alteration of becoming increasingly important. From the extant literature, we a consumer’s choice or an incorrect brand evaluation caused by the propose and define three types of confusion resulting from brand perceived physical similarity of products or services’. similarity, information load, and misleading or ambiguous infor- Another logical basis for confusion creation is information mation. This latter type can be regarded as an ‘altered knowledge overload. This stems from the idea that brand proliferation causes state’ in which a revision of understanding occurs. We argue that ‘confusion’ because of the ‘bounded-rationality’ of individuals in confusion should be conceptualized as a state variable and that relation to the volume and diversity of the information generated by existing confusion measures have focused solely on the behavioral a large number of brands (Simon 1962; Miller 1956). Clearly, and cognitive outcomes of confusion, ignoring the role of affect information overload is not only caused by a proliferation of brands, which is also a part of confusion. The paper is the first to discuss the but also by an increase in the amount of ‘decision-relevant’ infor- consequences of confusion and elaborate on consumer confusion- mation on the product in the environment surrounding the purchase reducing strategies. It concludes with some research implications of of a given number of goods. The greater the number of character- the new conceptualization. istics considered, the more difficult the choice will be (or the more ‘thinking cost’ incurred; Shugan 1980). We define overload confu- INTRODUCTION sion as: ‘a lack of understanding caused by the consumer being As consumers are provided with ever-increasing amounts of confronted with an overly information rich environment that can- information from more products sold through more channels and not be processed in the time available to fully understand, and be promoted in more ways, the idea of confusion is becoming increas- confident in, the purchase environment’. ingly important and has been reported as a problem in many Some authors refer to consumer confusion from product markets, e.g., telecommunications (e.g., Turnbull, Leek, and Ying complexity (e.g., Cohen 1999; Cahill 1995), ambiguous informa- 2000), life, health and travel insurance (Roberts 1995), and veal tion and advertisements or false product claims (e.g., Chryssochoidis products (West et al. 2002). Here, we make further observations 2000; Kangun and Polonsky 1995; Jacoby and Hoyer 1989), non- regarding the extant literature in this area. First, the lack of a transparent pricing (e.g., Berry and Yadav 1996) and poor product generally-accepted definition has contributed to very different manuals (e.g., Glasse 1992), all of which directly cause problems of conceptualizations of consumer confusion. Second, the existence understanding and are related to the concept of cognitive unclarity and potential significance of an affective dimension of confusion (see Cox 1967). This is similar to the notion of miscomprehension has been neglected in previous confusion studies and definitions. which Jacoby and Hoyer (1989, p. 435) define as the situation in Third, almost all conceptual and empirical work examining con- which “the receiver of the communication extracts meanings nei- sumer confusion has disregarded how consumers cope with confu- ther contained in nor logically derived from the communication sion and the idea that they employ confusion reduction strategies. and/or rejects meanings contained in or logically derived from the The paper begins by reviewing the extant definitions of consumer communication”. Jacoby and Hoyer (1989) go on to identify confusion and relevant literature before proposing and defining confused miscomprehension, which involves the consumer ex- three types of confusion. We then move on to provide a conceptual tracting two or more logically incompatible meanings, then realiz- model of consumer confusion which examines antecedents, poten- ing it but still not knowing which of the meanings is correct. The tial moderators and mediators, coping strategies and consequences important distinction we make is that ambiguity confusion is caused of consumer confusion. by information that is at variance with that already known by the individual, e.g., positively or negatively framed product informa- DEFINING CONSUMER CONFUSION tion that is inconsistent with a consumer’s beliefs about that product The extant literatures suggest there are three somewhat dis- (e.g., Grewal et al. 1994; Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy 1990). For tinct antecedents of consumer confusion and have not separated example, increasing instances of confusion occur in the health or confusion as a separate construct from its antecedents. Table 1 gives ‘slimming’ food market not because there may be too many similar an overview over existing definitions which show that consumer varieties or too much information to absorb, but because ‘credible’ confusion can be related to too similar, too many or unclear stimuli. sources such as television programs undermine the consumer’s The definitions view confusion as a conscious state of mind that can confidence in the accuracy of the producer’s/retailer’s claims. From occur either in the pre- or the post-purchase situation and have not this discussion, we define ambiguity confusion as being: ‘a lack of only a cognitive dimension, but also a behavioral one. We now understanding during which consumers are forced to re-evaluate review and discuss each type of confusion and its antecedents. and revise current beliefs or assumptions about products or the According to Diamond (1981, p. 52), brand similarity confu- purchasing environment’. sion occurs when an imitator, “(…) so resembles the mark in The vast majority of previous research has viewed confusion appearance, sound, or meaning that a prospective purchaser is predominantly as either behavioral or cognitive, with no suggestion likely to be confused or misled”. From our perspective, brand that confusion includes an affective component (see Table, 1). We similarity does not necessarily cause confusion unless the consum- add to this by conceptualizing the state of confusion as having three ers’ are aware of the two brands (e.g., Johnnie Walker and ‘Johnie consequences, i.e., cognitive, affective or behavioral, which we 143 Advances in Consumer Research Volume 32, © 2005 144 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion suggest are positively correlated, irrespective of the antecedents thorough and systematic search for alternatives and comparisons confusion experienced. Apart from some of the cognitive and because few products meet their demanding criteria. This thorough- behavioral consequences already mentioned, we propose confused ness is also likely to enhance an individual’s ability to distinguish consumers are likely to experience unpleasant emotions which may between similar stimuli. Hence, we argue that a perfectionistic include; frustration, irritation, anxiety, or even anger. approach to shopping might be an effective shield