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 against confusion Figure 1 shows the proposed conceptual model which we will caused by similarity and overload antecedents. be discussing. Research on consumer confusion has mainly focused Novelty-fashion seekers may be particularly prone to overload on identifying causes and effects of confusion paying little attention and ambiguity confusion antecedents because: they tend to obtain to its moderators and mediators. In addition to the three antecedents more information from the mass media and outside their social of confusion, moderators, mediators, confusion reduction strate- system (Midgley and Dowling 1978); fashion is ever changing and gies and consequences are depicted (see Figure 1). Mediator vari- contradictory (Mead 1993); of the uncertainty surrounding the ables, such as mood, can change while influencing the relationship longevity of such trends and the ambiguity of defining what is between two variables, while moderator variables (e.g., gender) can fashionable; they cannot be certain whether their products or styles affect the relationship, but do not change themselves. will ever become widely accepted (Winakor et al. 1980). Economic/price-value conscious consumers want the best Confusion Moderator Variables value for money, tend to have clear purchasing criteria and their Within any exchange process, it is either the stimulus itself, approach to shopping is systematic, thorough and efficient (Darden created by the marketer, which is inherently confusing or is it some and Reynolds 1971). This makes them less likely to experience inability on the consumer’s part to process marketing stimuli. similarity, overload or ambiguity confusion antecedents. Individual characteristics exert a moderating influence because Field independent individuals impose organization upon vi- they are often linked to the consumer’s ability to rationalize and sual stimuli and are able to locate a sought-after component. The process stimuli. Age may reduce confusion through an experience ability to better organize stimuli makes field independent consum- framework or may increase confusion as processing competence ers less likely to experience confusions from overload and ambigu- decreases with the ageing process. Gender differences may also be ity antecedents. related to the experience framework since females tend to have Equivalence range refers to the extent to which individuals more experience in different product classes than men. Females are generalize about stimuli presented to them (Foxman et al. 1992; also reported to perceive more advertisement clutter and Gardner, Jackson and Messick 1960). An individual with broad miscomprehension (e.g., Elliott and Speck 1998). Turnbull et al. equivalence (or low conceptual differentiation) considers stimuli to (2000) found that more females were ambiguity confused than be the same, even when they are only marginally similar. Thus, males in the mobile phone market, suggesting that product category broad equivalence consumers are more likely to become confused interrelates with gender. from similarity antecedents. In cognitive psychology, tolerance for ambiguity is concerned Shopping environment relates to the store layout, variety of with the degree to which people can restrain their need for a perfect, products on offer, arrangement of the merchandise, music, colors, clear view of the environment (e.g., Goldstein and Blackman 1977; lighting, etc. It might be expected that constant product moving, Feather 1969). Individuals with low tolerance for ambiguity may combined with poor signage, will increase ambiguity antecedents prematurely close their information processing activities, and are of confusion. Overload antecedents are likely to be exacerbated rigidly impervious to new information. The way tolerance is when too many products are placed on the shelves. Also, when discussed in the literature suggests that consumers go through a look-alike brands are placed side-by-side to the original brand, stage of ambiguity if they intend to clarify the choice environment consumers are more likely to detect that they are different brands and make a more considered purchase. Ambiguity confusion then and similarity antecedents of confusion are less likely. occurs when the error band, and uncertainty within the information, exceeds the error and uncertainty tolerance of the consumer. Confusion Mediator Variables Pinson’s (1978) work on cognitive styles distinguished be- Situational variables, such as shopping under time constraints, tween sharpeners and levelers, which are similar to Cox’s (1967) can lead to rushed decision-making, shortened information-pro- clarifiers and simplifiers. Foxman et al. (1992) found sharpeners cessing and inference-making time which is expected to increase commit fewer errors than levelers when distinguishing between confusion caused by similar stimuli (Balabanis and Craven 1997; similar stimuli. Such consumers use more discriminant criteria and Foxman et al. 1990). Time constraints should increase overload are less likely to be deceived when buying an imitator instead of an confusion antecedents because of decreased processing time, but it original brand. might also reduce overload confusion in certain circumstances Based on Kolb’s (1976) exploratory work, Sproles and Kendall because, knowing the time constraints, consumers might seek to (1990) examined the relationship between learning style and deci- acquire and process less information (Walsh 1999). Confusion sion-making styles and identified three learning styles which could from ambiguity antecedents can be expected to be negatively be particularly overload confusion inducing; namely, (1) the pas- correlated with the amount of available shopping time because it sive, accepting learning characteristic, (2) the concrete, fact-orien- allows more time to clarify what the information actually means. tated characteristic, and (3) the non-adaptive, struggling learning The social environment refers to the presence of others and characteristic. Indeed, in addition to a confused by over-choice their interactions with the consumer. For example, others’ opinions factor, Sproles and Kendall (1986) identified several decision- could add too much information and create confusion or could be making factors which have links with confusion, namely: Perfec- in conflict with existing beliefs and create confusion. Expectations tionism, Novelty-Fashion Consciousness, and Price-Value Con- of a situation can also influence how much confusion is generated. sciousness. We now discuss and explain some of these relation- For example, if consumers expect a situation to be confusing, they ships. may be more resistant to confusion causing stimuli or more pre- The perfectionistic consumer usually tries to buy products of pared to deal with it by using coping strategies which might reduce superior quality (Sproles 1985). This can involve a great deal of their incidence of becoming confused. Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 145
s
u
-
o
i
n
c
o
s
n
n
o
c
s
u
o
i
c
s
n
o
c
l
/
a
e
r
v
o
i
i
t
v
a
a
n
h
o
e
c
b
l
/
a
e
n
v
i
o
t
i
++
++
t
c
e
o
f
f
m
a
e
e
/
g
e
v
d
i
e
t
l
i
++
++
+++
+
+
+
++
+++
++
+
+
+
++
n
w
g
o
o
n
c
k
e
s
d
d
s
y
o
)
f
l
n
n
e
i
r
o
a
a
o
k
r
e
e
h
r
e
a
,
a
t
s
r
c
a
s
c
y
n
u
e
l
”
m
s
n
i
e
u
”
h
o
r
g
e
.
e
e
t
t
b
y
r
i
c
o
m
n
m
h
l
,
r
i
i
i
e
t
t
t
l
e
h
r
s
s
e
k
s
n
a
n
c
r
m
o
u
e
n
p
i
u
u
y
i
t
a
f
s
j
u
t
b
x
h
l
s
s
o
n
”
t
c
e
r
g
m
.
l
a
e
w
n
n
a
o
o
e
n
d
u
h
y
c
o
i
,
e
t
d
s
e
o
e
s
c
d
m
y
d
s
a
e
e
t
h
h
i
u
n
r
r
d
o
i
u
e
t
b
f
t
r
e
f
o
w
x
w
h
f
,
n
y
c
t
n
n
y
a
e
e
i
a
o
l
g
a
e
s
a
o
r
a
c
y
s
e
p
e
n
c
t
o
m
i
s
h
r
m
b
t
b
k
e
m
d
e
u
o
s
i
m
)
c
t
r
o
r
t
h
y
o
r
i
t
t
s
a
a
c
w
o
c
e
i
p
t
g
…
t
g
u
h
y
s
d
(
y
n
t
d
e
n
d
e
l
y
i
e
b
n
r
r
e
r
e
r
s
(
o
a
c
v
a
u
e
r
a
v
d
”
n
d
a
n
i
i
.
e
e
F
m
s
p
o
e
r
e
w
h
l
e
s
i
r
”
i
”
d
.
s
e
s
t
c
c
.
.
u
t
n
r
r
s
t
t
o
n
r
u
s
p
t
y
e
e
e
o
e
f
n
a
e
d
t
e
h
e
o
e
p
n
r
c
n
n
n
e
e
p
e
c
i
i
b
l
i
l
x
b
m
o
d
w
f
w
u
g
o
r
s
t
a
e
e
a
s
c
i
i
n
s
o
i
o
a
h
y
e
r
h
t
a
n
r
o
,
t
t
c
v
e
n
b
m
o
e
n
e
t
p
a
n
w
a
b
r
e
h
s
o
f
e
g
s
e
h
o
t
t
m
t
o
t
e
r
i
e
d
o
m
g
n
o
o
i
u
r
i
r
s
t
a
n
e
t
n
s
y
p
y
e
e
a
k
i
u
a
t
a
t
u
s
n
t
r
n
o
f
”
c
i
a
v
r
i
f
r
.
h
e
d
r
i
l
a
o
h
n
x
t
b
e
e
o
i
l
d
e
h
m
u
c
i
e
o
s
h
b
a
r
r w
c
l
r
i
o
t
m
i
c
w
r
y
e
a
e
o
e
s
m
p
s
,
s
u
t
l
e
i
f
f
,
h
h
r
l
s
b
n
r
s
r
f
s
t
t
n
p
m
o
o
n
e
e
u
o
o
e
n
o
TABLE 1
o
o
o
l
m
i
o
o
v
c
]
p
i
v
s
o
d
t
i
i
a
n
m
c
u
s
e
i
s
n
e
c
f
o
s
g
a
r
c
a
”
e
u
n
l
f
u
i
o
n
n
.
e
u
n
w
e
s
i
i
h
i
f
t
t
e
a
t
s
i
n
f
o
t
t
e
f
o
l
n
d
s
s
a
c
n
u
y
o
m
n
e
u
e
g
e
t
h
i
o
u
n
h
u
o
e
h
u
o
e
t
i
t
e
b
c
u
c
a
,
m
c
d
D
b
s
i
c
p
f
a
v
a
,
s
h
c
-
r
o
o
)
g
n
a
i
t
s
e
)
)
)
n
r
d
s
m
t
e
.
.
.
s
e
n
o
h
l
e
d
h
r
.
.
.
o
p
i
a
l
h
f
.
…
.
c
.
a
h
i
l
u
o
t
s
I
T
t
(
(
(
[
(
t
m
u
d
e
e
i
f
u
o
a
p
o
n
e
h
o
n
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“ f
t
t
w
n
m
i
c
o
a
Q
s
l
n
d
a
e
i
e
e
t
a
a
h
v
o
s
p
s
u
e
t
t
t
e
l
e
”
o
u
b
a
l
.
l
l
s
i
t
g
d
i
h
s
r
l
e
u
a
t
r
e
n
t
a
g
a
’
i
v
t
r
a
h
e
b
s
r
m
n
u
t
e
a g
l
a
i
r
i
i
u
t
d
y
d
n
e
e
l
k
e
i
l
n
g
i
n
s
r
d
i
i
r
h
v
o
a
n
n
o
o
r
m
t
,
a
t
i
i
i
t
f
m
c
a
a
t
c
e
u
s
d
t
e
a
e
m
a
e
s
”
e
c
s
r
f
d
n
.
m
u
i
f
r
e
i
n
i
e
m
f
e
n
m
d
o
v
u
r
c
e
o
r
h
e
l
r
a
e
v
e
r
r
b
t
i
p
o
c
l
i
e
o
Definitions of Consumer Confusion and their Classification
a
h
r
o
t
o
a
s
s
n
f
s
t
t
s
i
y
f
i
c
/
p
e
,
t
n
a
s
”
t
m
i
t
a
i
n
.
f
r
d
l
t
c
s
h
m
c
i
a
i
i
e
e
t
e
t
a
a
e
n
s
m
l
u
i
r
i
r
f
s
t
i
s
l
u
t
i
d
f
d
u
r
m
o
r
n
c
b
e
t
o
n
a
d
”
o
e
n
u
e
u
o
a
b
s
a
e
i
r
d
f
s
n
c
f
r
y
f
n
m
,
p
e
d
n
g
e
c
o
l
e
m
o
a
s
e
t
i
u
e
f
o
n
e
o
”
a
n
s
s
c
a
f
u
i
s
.
i
n
c
n
v
h
r
f
t
u
n
n
a
s
i
f
o
k
i
o
c
f
a
t
u
s
n
s
a
o
i
a
b
n
o
i
t
r
a
e
c
n
n
h
a
u
o
c
o
h
t
i
t
s
a
c
u
m
g
i
d
o
c
o
t
a
-
i
d
e
e
s
a
e
c
w
b
s
t
n
”
n
e
i
i
e
c
e
r
n
.
p
h
s
n
n
a
c
r
c
o
”
i
s
d
e
b
r
n
o
o
t
p
.
“
T
a
e
i
i
n
e
t
r
n
c
h
n
b
a
e
f
l
f
r
s
t
i
.
d
e
o
a
”
r
c
o
n
m
i
t
e
b
.
e
i
a
g
s
r
n
n
c
l
a
t
u
c
m
m
a
d
i
n
h
-
h
n
u
a
o
c
t
e
y
e
d
t
w
i
o
f
o
m
l
f
n
r
r
s
o
e
e
d
w
k
i
r
o
k
i
i
n
m
e
r
o
o
o
e
o
r
c
s
i
r
y
r
a
o
e
f
n
r
k
t
d
n
a
d
l
o
u
f
a
n
i
e
o
h
e
m
k
r
p
f
r
l
n
t
n
g
m
m
v
o
-
c
m
y
p
h
e
p
a
i
o
a
r
n
a
n
s
l
o
s
n
t
-
f
i
s
t
n
p
i
o
s
o
i
e
c
a
n
s
e
g
g
b
o
u
n
o
e
c
h
w
r
n
r
s
o
i
f
l
e
n
n
s
u
n
a
t
a
i
i
i
e
i
o
f
a
s
o
u
n
n
s
t
n
a
n
i
s
s
s
a
i
s
n
o
h
s
i
o
o
o
s
c
s
s
n
i
s
a
i
n
e
g
k
p
f
c
t
e
e
l
e
e
e
a
m
o
f
o
h
m
t
)
n
n
o
a
i
r
c
c
d
.
b
r
i
e
c
o
o
p
o
t
:
u
.
s
u
a
r
r
”
s
o
o
e
.
k
s
e
e
d
.
b
f
u
m
r
r
d
s
i
(
e
a
u
r
a
i
c
w
e
t
f
o
n
e
m
p
p
n
r
h
t
h
p
r
p
s
s
a
n
n
s
n
t
n
t
o
a
u
i
m
r
c
e
t
p
i
a
n
r
e
n
n
o
o
o
s
s
e
r
e
t
s
a
e
r
i
i
s
t
e
u
g
c
i
o
o
s
n
n
v
a
u
m
r
s
s
i
i
i
r
k
i
n
n
s
r
o
z
o
o
r
t
t
p
o
t
e
i
m
u
u
i
a
a
d
i
i
-
c
c
s
o
a
a
t
f
f
o
c
l
d
s
t
u
t
n
f
e
)
i
m
’
s
e
a
n
n
s
n
)
)
)
r
c
r
a
e
m
m
e
r
.
.
.
u
e
d
n
p
a
o
o
r
n
e
r
r
.
.
.
e
r
p
i
s
e
.
…
.
.
c
s
n
r
o
f
a
p
o
o
)
(
C
C
(
(
B
W
(
r
n
n
o
a
o
.
e
f
f
c
e
.
r
r
r
r
e
o
o
w
.
h
n
n
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
t
i
i
p
b
p
D
c
c
a
o
a
(
g
.
,
,
,
,
.
n
p
0
l
)
0
2
e
9
p
l
)
,
)
0
d
.
l
n
4
.
9
9
a
n
9
l
,
3
6
6
0
n
p
i
r
h
2
p
9
9
d
a
9
8
r
9
8
a
6
2
o
a
,
.
r
1
1
,
n
h
1
(
7
4
9
.
k
(
(
1
r
r
(
p
e
o
5
K
9
.
1
a
;
)
)
)
p
e
e
8
.
.
l
,
9
(
l
1
l
l
K
u
h
)
2
3
3
4
d
, 9
l
a
M
d
(
9
9
V
d
a
a
.
o
7
9
1
3
7
e
n
4 1
T
l
n
t
i
d
9
1
n
d
t
t
(
l
o
9
4
2
2
2
a
p
a
a
d
7
(
)
e
n
9
a
i
t
e
e
n
d
s
.
.
.
.
.
n
9
S
t
s
a
l
d
a
r
1
s
l
(
n
a
n
l
a
s
i
(
p
p
p
p
p
e
1
l
,
n
n
e
n
r
a
l
s
a
)
)
)
)
(
u
a
r
m
e
a
a
,
,
,
,
,
y
y
o
z
o
e
u
h
n
5
7
2
5
i
e
b
v
h
m
l
8
8
7
9
6
b
b
s
l
n
A
s
f
e
h
o
m
m
f
4
2
7
2
a
n
c
m
)
)
l
o
e
9
9
9
8
8
o
o
t
f
h
h
t
a
p
r
k
x
x
i
1
3
1
1
r
)
p
a )
a
1
6
i
i
c
c
9
9
9
9
9
u
o
a
u
’
o i
u
o
a
o
o
o
p
9
.
.
.
.
2
0
a 9
a
1
1
1
1
1
T
J
4 J
W
p
M P p
H
K
K
F p F p
P
L
An
M D
K D 5
(
(
(
(
(
S
1
1 146 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Model for Antecedents, Moderators, Mediators, Coping Strategies and Consequences of Confusion Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 147 Experience can work for or against the consumer with respect place are when a consumer unknowingly acts because of to confusion. Although Foxman et al. (1990) suggest that new triers subconscious confusion, e.g., buying an imitator brand believing it and occasional buyers may be especially vulnerable to confusion, is the original. Brengman et al. (2001) found no statistical differences in the When choice rather than abandonment is the result of confu- proclivity to similarity antecedents of confusion between light and sion, the same possible negative consequences for all three types of heavy product category users. Experienced consumers are less confusion on choice can be: a) a known alteration in brand choice likely to thoroughly compare the products they buy regularly and caused by a lack of understanding, b) the same choice, but made are less likely to be overloaded than inexperienced ones. This is with undue amounts of uncertainty, misunderstanding, frustration partly because although they consider a greater number of informa- and dissonance, c) the same choice, but poor or non-maximal tion dimensions, heavy users look at fewer brand alternatives product utilization caused by inadequate understanding, d) the (Jacoby 1977), and partly because the knowledge that stems from same choice, but an inability to inform others about the product or experience facilitates information processing. Also, firmer product misinform them which may create problems for others, e) the same beliefs, accrued from experience, make consumers selectively or different choice depending on the outcome of a delay designed perceptive and reduce consumers’ scope of search (Neisser 1976). to clarify the choice by using confusion reduction strategies. As consumers gain brand experience their knowledge base ex- Finally, there is a tendency in the literature to regard confusion as pands, choice alternatives and evaluative attributes become fewer akin to (a reverse) ‘hygiene’ factor in the consumer decision- and they should become less susceptible to all three types of making; its presence causes dissatisfaction, but its absence does not confusion. motivate consumers to purchase and does not necessarily lead to Foxman et al. (1992) suggest that the task definition can satisfaction. This is likely because the experience of confusion can influence the propensity to become confused because it is related to be rather unpleasant, the eventual outcome or consequences flow- the importance of a purchase. For example, consumers can be ing from it can be negative. The ‘hygiene’ analogy gives a negative scrupulous and attentive when buying a gift and thus be less likely view of confusion, which we contend for the most part to be correct. to be confused from similarity antecedents (Balabanis and Craven However, it is conceivable that confusion will have positive conse- 1997). quences. For example, if a consumer employs confusion reduction With a low-involvement purchase, confusion from informa- strategies and successfully copes with his/her confusion, it could tion overload is less likely to occur because less information search lead to decreased pre-purchasing dissonance or increased satisfac- and processing takes place. Confusion from ambiguous market tion. In the following section we offer further specific insights into stimuli should be positively correlated with quicker decision mak- the potential impact of confusion from all three types of antecedents ing because the consumer is less likely to thoroughly examine on consumers’ behavior. ambiguous product information. In high-involvement contexts, the Confusion from Similarity Antecedents and Related Outcomes decision maker will put greater effort into making choices by Stimulus similarity is likely to lead to a delay or abandonment adopting decision styles that involve more deliberation and evalu- of decision making because when consumers are aware that there is ation and this may help to avoid confusion (Foxman et al. 1992). at least a possibility that they are about to buy a brand they did not However, greater effort is only likely to reduce the incidence of intend to, they are likely to take more time to find out whether the confusion if two conditions hold, namely, 1) that the information is (two or more) alternatives are actually the same. Consumers may available and comprehensible, and 2) that the consumer has the also abandon a purchase altogether (‘no-choice option’) because processing ability to analyze the information. If either of these two they want to avoid making difficult trade-offs (e.g., Dhar 1997). conditions is not met, consumers could easily become more con- Other studies have reported similar findings that consumers are fused as they increase the purchase evaluation effort. more likely to select a no-choice option when both alternatives are attractive (e.g., Luce 1998). The relevance of confusion from Consequences of Confusion similarity antecedents to social interaction is because consumers We suggest that attribution theory serves to determine some of sometimes feel ashamed of being unable to differentiate between the consequences of confusion. The more consumers attribute their brands. Consumers who are duped are not always likely to share confusion to external company sources, the greater will be the effect their negative experience which they see as their own fault. on company-related consequences. Although no study has system- We expect consumers’ inability to differentiate between stimuli atically investigated the outcomes of consumer confusion, it has (i.e., perceived stimulus similarity) to cause dissatisfaction directed been associated with several unfavorable consequences, such as, towards one manufacturer that clearly imitates the other. This is negative word-of-mouth (Turnbull et al. 2000), dissatisfaction partly because of the time and effort needed to assess the authentic- (Zaichkowsky 1995; Foxman et al. 1990), cognitive dissonance ity of the alternatives and these opportunity costs yield no utility (Mitchell and Papavassiliou 1999), decision postponement (e.g., (Foxman et al. 1990). What is worst still for the original manufac- Jacoby and Morrin 1998; Huffman and Kahn 1998), shopping turer, is if the consumer does not realize that he/she has bought an fatigue (Mitchell and Papavassiliou 1997), reactance (Settle and imitator brand and attributes any resultant dissatisfaction to the Alreck 1988), decreased loyalty and trust and confusing other original brand. consumers (Foxman et al. 1992; 1990). We propose that there are Brand loyalty is also likely to be affected by confusion caused two temporally-distinct consequence categories. The first relates to by similar stimuli (Mitchell and Papavassiliou 1999) because the immediate effects of confusion. The second relates to actions confused consumers, who perceive stimulus similarity and have aimed to cope with, reduce or eliminate confusion. trouble distinguishing products and manufacturers, will find it Overload-confused consumers are likely to interrupt decision difficult to reward a manufacturer with their trust. In this context, making in order to take measures that allow them to deal with the Zaichkowsky and Simpson (1996) argue that perceived brand information load by separating important from less important similarity can change consumers’ attitudes about the uniqueness of information, narrowing the choice set or reducing the number of the national brand. Consumers’ trust is likely to reduce because they attributes on which the decision is based (e.g., Iyengar and Lepper will not know which the ‘right’ alternative is and which manufac- 2000). The situations in which no decision postponement takes turer to trust (Lau and Lee 1999). 148 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion Confusion from Information Overload and Related Outcomes before and this section identifies some strategies which consumers Overload-confused consumers are likely to interrupt decision might use. making in order to take measures that allow them to deal with the In our view, CRS are, in the main, concerned with clarifying information load by separating important from less important a choice, reducing ambiguity and increasing understanding relating information, narrowing the choice set or reducing the number of to a purchase decision. We propose that the confused consumer attributes on which the decision is based. Since stimulus overload develops strategies which can be categorized into four generic can be attributed to a lack of (processing) time, delaying the approaches, namely; (1) clarify the buying goals, (2) seek addi- purchase decision can be interpreted as an attempt to gain more tional information, (3) narrow down the set of alternatives, (4) processing time. However, expending a greater effort to arrive at a share/delegate the purchase decision. The ‘seeking additional in- decision without gaining a perceivable utility can lead to consumer formation’ category mostly consists of strategies which clarify the dissatisfaction (Turnbull et al. 2000). Perceived overload, caused choice environment, but can also involve simplifying strategies. by too many stimuli, can cause stress on part of the consumer and The reduction of confusion caused by similarity and ambiguity dissatisfaction. critically depends on the content of the information received, since As brand loyalty reflects habitual purchasing and requires less additional information which is conflicting will not reduce similar- decision making, information seeking and brand evaluation, the ity antecedents and can exacerbate ambiguity. Confused consumers prospect of having to do less information processing and compari- can often involve other people (i.e., spouse, family member and son is likely to be appreciated by those consumers who are prone to friend) in the purchasing decision by asking a person to accompany stimulus overload confusion. Therefore, loyalty can be viewed as a them whilst shopping to help them comprehend the choice environ- strategic (conscious or non-conscious) reaction to overload. More- ment. Alternatively, they may delegate the task completely. over, Chernev (2003) found that when consumers select a product from a large assortment it often leads to weaker preferences. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH Irrespective of cognitive abilities, consumers tend to feel This paper stimulates a number of research questions driven better prepared for purchase decisions with a greater amount of by the proposed model. For example, how is confusion affected by information (Jacoby, Speller, and Berning 1974; Jacoby, Speller, the decision context, e.g., by the degree of involvement and how is and Kohn 1974). Since consumers tend to prefer larger stores, with it affected by purchaser characteristics such as; age, gender and a greater assortment, to smaller stores with a small assortment cognitive style? The role of atmospherics and the overall physical (Hoyer and MacInnis 1997), the over-abundance of products and store environment and its relationship with consumer confusion information which today’s consumers encounter is unlikely to would appear complicated and requires further exploration. Indeed, decrease trust per se. basic research parameters of confusion need to be established such Confusion from Ambiguous Stimuli and Related Outcomes as identifying and measuring; antecedents of confusion; modera- Consumers who are confused by unclear stimuli, or who suffer tors and mediators of confusion; reduction strategies and outcomes from partial miscomprehension (i.e., who extract more than one of confusion. One outcome which requires further research might logically independent meaning), are likely to try to find information be shopping fatigue. Consumers who experience confusion regu- that will help them clarify their choice environment, e.g., by trying larly across different products categories are likely to become more to establish which information is more credible. This will inevitably frustrated with and tired of shopping. To the extent that much of the involve suspending the decision-making process. When consumers information processing and assessment of error and uncertainty are compare two or more complex products and experience confusion done without our conscious awareness, we can agree somewhat from ambiguous information, it could lead to choice deferral with Foxman et al.’s (1992) assertion that confusion is concerned because the consumer tries to cope with what is seen as a non- with errors of which the consumer is unaware (at least partially), comparable alternative (Dhar 1997). However, ambiguity-con- because sub-conscious processing of information is a basic condi- fused consumers are unlikely to engage in negative word-of-mouth tion driven by our mental limitations vis-à-vis a complex environ- if they attribute their inability to fully use and understand a product ment. This presents a major challenge for the measurement process. to themselves and not the product manufacturer. In order to examine some of these ideas, we need to measure Similar to stimulus overload, ambiguity is likely to cause each type of consumer confusion which depends significantly on consumers to seek ways to make satisfactory decisions on a more the development of a comprehensive confusion scale (e.g., Foxman permanent basis and becoming brand loyal equates to making fewer et al. 1992). Thus far, no comprehensive scale exists, although some comparisons, which means consumers are confronted with less existing scales may capture elements of the overload confusion ambiguous or unclear stimuli. Trust can help to reduce the per- concept, e.g., Reilly’s (1982) ‘Role Overload of the Wife’, Childers, ceived complexity in the environment (Hillmann 1994) because Houston and Heckler’s (1985) ‘Style of Processing Scale’ and products that have once been positively evaluated do not need to be Sproles and Kendall’s (1986) confusion factor in their ‘Consumer assessed again. From an attribution viewpoint, it is also conceivable Styles Inventory’. There is therefore a need to devise a completely that consumers do not blame manufacturers and retailers for their new scale to measure the degree of confusion caused by similarity perceived ambiguity, but blame themselves, which is unlikely to and ambiguity. entail a withdrawal of trust. REFERENCES Confusion Reduction/Coping Strategies Balabanis, George and Samantha Craven (1997), “Consumer When confusion is experienced by consumers, the same Confusion from Own Brand Lookalikes: An Exploratory context may (or will) cause different degrees of confusion depend- Investigation,” Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 299- ing on the individual’s prior skill or competence in information 313. processing and with respect to the confusion ‘strategies’ adopted to Berry, Leonard L. and Manjit S. Yadav (1996), “Capture and cope. An important prerequisite for the use of confusion reduction Communicate Value in Pricing of Services,” Sloan Manage- strategies (CRS) is that the consumer is aware of the confusion ment Review, 37 (4), 41-52. involved in the decision. Confusion reduction has not been studied Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 149 Brengman, Malaika, Magie Geuens, and Patrick De Pelsmacker Hoyer, Wayne D. and Deborah J. MacInnis (1997), Consumer (2001), “The impact of consumer characteristics and Behavior, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. campaign related factors on brand confusion in print Huffman, Cynthia and Barbara E. Kahn (1998), “Variety for advertising,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 7 (4), Sale: Mass Customization or Mass Confusion?” Journal of 231-243. Retailing, 74 (4), 491-513. Cahill, Dennis J. (1995), “We sure as hell confuse ourselves, but Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper (2000), “When Choice is what about the customers?” Marketing Intelligence and Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Planning, 13, 5-9. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 995- Chernev, Alexander (2003), “When More Is Less and Less Is 1006. More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Jacoby, Jacob (1977), “Information Load and Decision Quality: Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September), Some Contested Issues,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 170-182. (November), 569-573. Childers, Terry L., Michael J. Houston, and Susan Heckler Jacoby, Jacob, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Berning (1974), (1985), “Measuring Individual Differences in Visual versus “Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load: Verbal Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Replication and Extension,” Journal of Consumer Research, Research, 12 (September), 125-131. 1 (February), 33-42. Chryssochoidis, George (2000), “Repercussions of consumer Jacoby, Jacob, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Kohn (1974), confusion for late introduced differentiated products,” “Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load,” European Journal of Marketing, 34, 705-722. Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February), 63-64. Cohen, Marcel (1999), “Insights into consumer confusion,” Jacoby, Jacob and Maureen Morrin (1998), “‘Not manufactured Consumer Policy Review, 9 (6), 210-213. or authorized by...’: recent federal cases involving trademark Cox, Donald F. (1967), “Risk Handling in Consumer Behavior,” disclaimers,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17, 97- in Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer 108. Behavior, ed. Donald F. Cox, Boston, MA: Harvard Jacoby, Jacob and Wayne D. Hoyer (1989), “The Comprehen- University Press, 34-81. sion/Miscomprehension of Print Communication: Selected Darden, William R. and Fred D. Reynolds (1971), “Shopping Findings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 434- Orientations and Product Usage Rates,” Journal of Market- 443. ing Research, 8 (Nov.), 505-508. Kangun, Norman and Michael J. Polonsky (1995), “Regulation Dhar, Ravi (1997), “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice of Environmental Marketing Claims: A Comparative Option,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September), Perspective,” International Journal of Advertising, 13 (4), 1- 215-231. 24. Diamond, Sidney A. (1981), Trademark Problems and How to Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1995), “Stealing brand equity: measuring Avoid Them, Revised Edition, Crain Communications, perceptual confusion between national brands and ´copycat´ Chicago. own-label products,” Marketing And Research Today (May), Elliott, Michael T. and Paul Surgi Speck (1998), “Consumer 96-102. Perceptions of Advertising Clutter and Its Impact across Kent, Robert J. and Chris T. Allen (1994), “Competitive Various Media,” Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (1), 29- Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising: 41. The Role of Brand Familiarity,” Journal of Marketing, 58 Feather, N. T. (1969), “Preference for information in relation to (July), 97-105. consistency, novelty, intolerance of ambiguity, and dogma- Kohli, Chiranjeev and Mrugank Thakor (1997), “Branding tism,” Australian Journal of Psychology, 21, 235-249. consumer goods: insight from theory and practice,” Journal Foxman, Ellen R., Darrel D. Meuhling, and Phil W. Berger of Consumer Marketing, 14, 206-219. (1990), “An Investigation of Factors Contributing to Kolb, David A. (1976), Learning Styles Inventory: Technical Consumer Brand Confusion,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, Manual, Boston, MA: McBer and Co. 24, 170-189. Lau, Geok Theng and Sook Han Lee (1999), “Consumers’ Trust Foxman, Ellen R., Phil W. Berger, and Joseph A. Cole (1992), in a Brand and the Link to Brand Loyalty,” Journal of “Consumer Brand Confusion: A Conceptual Framework,” Market Focused Management, 4, 341-370. Psychology and Marketing, 9 (March/April), 123-141. Loken, Barbara, Ivan Ross, and Ronald L. Hinkle (1986), Gardner, Riley W., Douglas N. Jackson, and Samuel J. Messick “Consumer Confusion of Origin and Brand Similarity (1960), “Personality organization in cognitive controls and Perceptions,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 5, intellectual abilities,” Psychological Issues, 2 (4, No. 8), 228- 195-211. 248. Luce, Mary Frances (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Glasse, J. (1992), “Hang On,” Dealerscope Merchandising, 34, Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Iss. 8 (Aug.), 10-14, 25. Consumer Research, 24 (4), 409-433. Goldstein, K. M. and S. Blackman (1977), “Assessment of Maheswaran, Durairaj and Joan Meyers-Levy (1990), “The cognitive style”, in Advances in Psychological Assessment, 4, Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement,” ed. P. McReynold, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 462-525. Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 361-367. Grewal, Dhruv, Jerry Gotlieb, and Howard Marmorstein (1994), Mead, G. (1993), “Charity in Fashion: A Look at Bennetton’s “The Moderating Effects of Message Framing and Source Latest Campaign and Finds Style more Evident than Credibility on the Price-perceived Risk Relationship,” Substance,” Financial Times, Jan. 28, 18. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 145-153. Miaoulis, George and Nancy D´Amato (1978), “Consumer Hillmann, Karl-Heinz (1994), Wörterbuch der Soziologie confusion: Trademark infringement,” Journal of Marketing, [Dictionary of Sociology], Stuttgart: Kröner. 42, 45-55. 150 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion Midgley, David F. and Grahame R. Dowling (1978), “Innovativeness: The concept and its measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 229-242. Miller, George A. (1956), “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information,” Psychological Review, 63 (March), 81-92. Mitchell, Vincent-Wayne and Vassilios Papavassiliou (1997), “Exploring the Concept of Consumer Confusion,” Market Intelligence & Planning, 15 (April-May), 164-169. Mitchell, Vincent-Wayne and Vassilios Papavassiliou (1999), “Market Causes and Implications of Consumer Confusion,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8, 319-339. Neisser, Ulric (1976), Cognition and Reality, San Francisco, California: W.H. Freeman. Pinson, C. (1978), “Consumer Cognitive Styles: Review and Implications for Marketers”, in “Marketing: Neue Ergebnisse aus Forschung und Praxis”, ed. E. Topritzhofer, Dusseldorf, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Poiesz, Theo B. C. and Theo M. M. Verhallen (1989), “Brand Confusion in Advertising,” International Journal of Advertising, 8, 231-244. Reilly, Michael D. (1982), “Working Wives and Convenience Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March), 407-418. Roberts, L. (1995), “OFT to probe policies ‘confusion’”, The Independent, 20 May. Settle, Robert B. and Pamela L. Alreck (1988), “Hyperchoice shapes the Marketplace,” Marketing Communications, 13 (5, May), 15-20, 61. Shugan, Steven M. (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (2, September), 99-111. Simon, Herbert A. (1962), “The Architecture of Complexity,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467-82. Sproles, George B. (1985), “From Perfectionism to Fadism: Measuring Consumers’ Decision-Making Styles,” Proceed- ings, American Council on Consumer Interests, 79-85. Sproles, George B. and Elizabeth Kendall (1986), “A Methodol- ogy for Profiling Consumers’ Decision-Making Styles,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20 (2), 267-279. Sproles, George B. and Elizabeth Kendall (1990), “Consumer Decision-Making Styles as a Function of Individual Learning Styles,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24 (1), 134-147. Turnbull, Peter W., Sheena Leek, and Grace Ying (2000), “Customer Confusion: The Mobile Phone Market,” Journal of Marketing Management, 16 (January-April), 143-163. Walsh, Gianfranco (1999), German Consumer Decision-Making Styles with an Emphasis on Consumer Confusion, Manches- ter, UMIST, Precinct Library, Theses collection M134. West, Gale E., Bruno Larue, Carole Gendron, and Shannon L. Scott (2002), “Consumer Confusion Over the Significance of Meat Attributes: The Case of Veal,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 25, 65-88. Winakor, Geitel, B. Canton, and L. Wolins (1980), “Perceived Fashion Risk and Self Esteem of Males and Females,” Home Economics Research Journal, 9 (1, Sep.), 45-56. Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1995), Defending your Brand Against Imitation: Consumer Behavior, Marketing Strate- gies, and Legal Issues, Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books. Zaichkowsky, Judith L. and R. Neil Simpson (1996), “The effect of experience with a brand imitator on the original brand,” Marketing Letters, 7 (1), 31-39.