143 Advances in Consumer Research

Volume 32, 2005

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 infor-
mation. 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.
INTRODUCTION
As consumers are provided with ever-increasing amounts of
information from more products sold through more channels and
promoted in more ways, the idea of confusion is becoming increas-
ingly important and has been reported as a problem in many
markets, e.g., telecommunications (e.g., Turnbull, Leek, and Ying
2000), life, health and travel insurance (Roberts 1995), and veal
products (West et al. 2002). Here, we make further observations
regarding the extant literature in this area. First, the lack of a
generally-accepted definition has contributed to very different
conceptualizations of consumer confusion. Second, the existence
and potential significance of an affective dimension of confusion
has been neglected in previous confusion studies and definitions.
Third, almost all conceptual and empirical work examining con-
sumer confusion has disregarded how consumers cope with confu-
sion and the idea that they employ confusion reduction strategies.
The paper begins by reviewing the extant definitions of consumer
confusion and relevant literature before proposing and defining
three types of confusion. We then move on to provide a conceptual
model of consumer confusion which examines antecedents, poten-
tial moderators and mediators, coping strategies and consequences
of consumer confusion.
DEFINING CONSUMER CONFUSION
The extant literatures suggest there are three somewhat dis-
tinct antecedents of consumer confusion and have not separated
confusion as a separate construct from its antecedents. Table 1 gives
an overview over existing definitions which show that consumer
confusion can be related to too similar, too many or unclear stimuli.
The definitions view confusion as a conscious state of mind that can
occur either in the pre- or the post-purchase situation and have not
only a cognitive dimension, but also a behavioral one. We now
review and discuss each type of confusion and its antecedents.
According to Diamond (1981, p. 52), brand similarity confu-
sion occurs when an imitator, () so resembles the mark in
appearance, sound, or meaning that a prospective purchaser is
likely to be confused or misled. From our perspective, brand
similarity does not necessarily cause confusion unless the consum-
ers are aware of the two brands (e.g., Johnnie Walker and Johnie
Hawker whisky). Similarity in advertisements and commercial
messages can also cause this type of confusion (e.g., Kent and Allen
1994; Poiesz and Verhallen 1989). We define brand similarity
confusion as: a lack of understanding and potential alteration of
a consumers choice or an incorrect brand evaluation caused by the
perceived physical similarity of products or services.
Another logical basis for confusion creation is information
overload. This stems from the idea that brand proliferation causes
confusion because of the bounded-rationality of individuals in
relation to the volume and diversity of the information generated by
a large number of brands (Simon 1962; Miller 1956). Clearly,
information overload is not only caused by a proliferation of brands,
but also by an increase in the amount of decision-relevant infor-
mation on the product in the environment surrounding the purchase
of a given number of goods. The greater the number of character-
istics considered, the more difficult the choice will be (or the more
thinking cost incurred; Shugan 1980). We define overload confu-
sion as: a lack of understanding caused by the consumer being
confronted with an overly information rich environment that can-
not be processed in the time available to fully understand, and be
confident in, the purchase environment.
Some authors refer to consumer confusion from product
complexity (e.g., Cohen 1999; Cahill 1995), ambiguous informa-
tion and advertisements or false product claims (e.g., Chryssochoidis
2000; Kangun and Polonsky 1995; Jacoby and Hoyer 1989), non-
transparent pricing (e.g., Berry and Yadav 1996) and poor product
manuals (e.g., Glasse 1992), all of which directly cause problems of
understanding and are related to the concept of cognitive unclarity
(see Cox 1967). This is similar to the notion of miscomprehension
which Jacoby and Hoyer (1989, p. 435) define as the situation in
which the receiver of the communication extracts meanings nei-
ther contained in nor logically derived from the communication
and/or rejects meanings contained in or logically derived from the
communication. Jacoby and Hoyer (1989) go on to identify
confused miscomprehension, which involves the consumer ex-
tracting two or more logically incompatible meanings, then realiz-
ing it but still not knowing which of the meanings is correct. The
important distinction we make is that ambiguity confusion is caused
by information that is at variance with that already known by the
individual, e.g., positively or negatively framed product informa-
tion that is inconsistent with a consumers beliefs about that product
(e.g., Grewal et al. 1994; Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy 1990). For
example, increasing instances of confusion occur in the health or
slimming food market not because there may be too many similar
varieties or too much information to absorb, but because credible
sources such as television programs undermine the consumers
confidence in the accuracy of the producers/retailers claims. From
this discussion, we define ambiguity confusion as being: a lack of
understanding during which consumers are forced to re-evaluate
and revise current beliefs or assumptions about products or the
purchasing environment.
The vast majority of previous research has viewed confusion
predominantly as either behavioral or cognitive, with no suggestion
that confusion includes an affective component (see Table, 1). We
add to this by conceptualizing the state of confusion as having three
consequences, i.e., cognitive, affective or behavioral, which we
144 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion
suggest are positively correlated, irrespective of the antecedents
confusion experienced. Apart from some of the cognitive and
behavioral consequences already mentioned, we propose confused
consumers are likely to experience unpleasant emotions which may
include; frustration, irritation, anxiety, or even anger.
Figure 1 shows the proposed conceptual model which we will
be discussing. Research on consumer confusion has mainly focused
on identifying causes and effects of confusion paying little attention
to its moderators and mediators. In addition to the three antecedents
of confusion, moderators, mediators, confusion reduction strate-
gies and consequences are depicted (see Figure 1). Mediator vari-
ables, such as mood, can change while influencing the relationship
between two variables, while moderator variables (e.g., gender) can
affect the relationship, but do not change themselves.
Confusion Moderator Variables
Within any exchange process, it is either the stimulus itself,
created by the marketer, which is inherently confusing or is it some
inability on the consumers part to process marketing stimuli.
Individual characteristics exert a moderating influence because
they are often linked to the consumers ability to rationalize and
process stimuli. Age may reduce confusion through an experience
framework or may increase confusion as processing competence
decreases with the ageing process. Gender differences may also be
related to the experience framework since females tend to have
more experience in different product classes than men. Females are
also reported to perceive more advertisement clutter and
miscomprehension (e.g., Elliott and Speck 1998). Turnbull et al.
(2000) found that more females were ambiguity confused than
males in the mobile phone market, suggesting that product category
interrelates with gender.
In cognitive psychology, tolerance for ambiguity is concerned
with the degree to which people can restrain their need for a perfect,
clear view of the environment (e.g., Goldstein and Blackman 1977;
Feather 1969). Individuals with low tolerance for ambiguity may
prematurely close their information processing activities, and are
rigidly impervious to new information. The way tolerance is
discussed in the literature suggests that consumers go through a
stage of ambiguity if they intend to clarify the choice environment
and make a more considered purchase. Ambiguity confusion then
occurs when the error band, and uncertainty within the information,
exceeds the error and uncertainty tolerance of the consumer.
Pinsons (1978) work on cognitive styles distinguished be-
tween sharpeners and levelers, which are similar to Coxs (1967)
clarifiers and simplifiers. Foxman et al. (1992) found sharpeners
commit fewer errors than levelers when distinguishing between
similar stimuli. Such consumers use more discriminant criteria and
are less likely to be deceived when buying an imitator instead of an
original brand.
Based on Kolbs (1976) exploratory work, Sproles and Kendall
(1990) examined the relationship between learning style and deci-
sion-making styles and identified three learning styles which could
be particularly overload confusion inducing; namely, (1) the pas-
sive, accepting learning characteristic, (2) the concrete, fact-orien-
tated characteristic, and (3) the non-adaptive, struggling learning
characteristic. Indeed, in addition to a confused by over-choice
factor, Sproles and Kendall (1986) identified several decision-
making factors which have links with confusion, namely: Perfec-
tionism, Novelty-Fashion Consciousness, and Price-Value Con-
sciousness. We now discuss and explain some of these relation-
ships.
The perfectionistic consumer usually tries to buy products of
superior quality (Sproles 1985). This can involve a great deal of
thorough and systematic search for alternatives and comparisons
because few products meet their demanding criteria. This thorough-
ness is also likely to enhance an individuals ability to distinguish
between similar stimuli. Hence, we argue that a perfectionistic
approach to shopping might be an effective shield against confusion
caused by similarity and overload antecedents.
Novelty-fashion seekers may be particularly prone to overload
and ambiguity confusion antecedents because: they tend to obtain
more information from the mass media and outside their social
system (Midgley and Dowling 1978); fashion is ever changing and
contradictory (Mead 1993); of the uncertainty surrounding the
longevity of such trends and the ambiguity of defining what is
fashionable; they cannot be certain whether their products or styles
will ever become widely accepted (Winakor et al. 1980).
Economic/price-value conscious consumers want the best
value for money, tend to have clear purchasing criteria and their
approach to shopping is systematic, thorough and efficient (Darden
and Reynolds 1971). This makes them less likely to experience
similarity, overload or ambiguity confusion antecedents.
Field independent individuals impose organization upon vi-
sual stimuli and are able to locate a sought-after component. The
ability to better organize stimuli makes field independent consum-
ers less likely to experience confusions from overload and ambigu-
ity antecedents.
Equivalence range refers to the extent to which individuals
generalize about stimuli presented to them (Foxman et al. 1992;
Gardner, Jackson and Messick 1960). An individual with broad
equivalence (or low conceptual differentiation) considers stimuli to
be the same, even when they are only marginally similar. Thus,
broad equivalence consumers are more likely to become confused
from similarity antecedents.
Shopping environment relates to the store layout, variety of
products on offer, arrangement of the merchandise, music, colors,
lighting, etc. It might be expected that constant product moving,
combined with poor signage, will increase ambiguity antecedents
of confusion. Overload antecedents are likely to be exacerbated
when too many products are placed on the shelves. Also, when
look-alike brands are placed side-by-side to the original brand,
consumers are more likely to detect that they are different brands
and similarity antecedents of confusion are less likely.
Confusion Mediator Variables
Situational variables, such as shopping under time constraints,
can lead to rushed decision-making, shortened information-pro-
cessing and inference-making time which is expected to increase
confusion caused by similar stimuli (Balabanis and Craven 1997;
Foxman et al. 1990). Time constraints should increase overload
confusion antecedents because of decreased processing time, but it
might also reduce overload confusion in certain circumstances
because, knowing the time constraints, consumers might seek to
acquire and process less information (Walsh 1999). Confusion
from ambiguity antecedents can be expected to be negatively
correlated with the amount of available shopping time because it
allows more time to clarify what the information actually means.
The social environment refers to the presence of others and
their interactions with the consumer. For example, others opinions
could add too much information and create confusion or could be
in conflict with existing beliefs and create confusion. Expectations
of a situation can also influence how much confusion is generated.
For example, if consumers expect a situation to be confusing, they
may be more resistant to confusion causing stimuli or more pre-
pared to deal with it by using coping strategies which might reduce
their incidence of becoming confused.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 145
T
A
B
L
E

1
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r

C
o
n
f
u
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
s
(
r
o
h
t
u
A
n
o
i
t
i
n
i
f
e
D
n
o
i
t
i
n
i
f
e
D
-
i
s
a
u
Q
/
e
v
i
t
i
n
g
o
c
e
g
d
e
l
w
o
n
k
/
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
a
l
a
n
o
i
t
o
m
e
/
e
v
i
t
a
n
o
c
l
a
r
o
i
v
a
h
e
b
s
u
o
i
c
s
n
o
c
-
n
o
n
s
u
o
i
c
s
n
o
c
d
n
a
r
e
l
l
e
p
S
,
y
b
o
c
a
J
)
6
6
.
p
,
4
7
9
1
(
n
h
o
K
d
n
a
,
y
u
b
t
s
e
b
e
h
t
d
e
n
i
a
t
b
o
g
n
i
v
a
h
t
o
n
f
o
,
n
o
i
s
u
f
n
o
c
f
o
s
g
n
i
l
e
e
f
)
.
.
.
(

.
r
e
t
t
e
b
s
a
w
d
n
a
r
b
r
e
h
t
o
n
a
t
a
h
t
g
n
i
l
e
e
f
+
+
d
n
a
s
i
l
u
o
a
i
M
.
p
,
8
7
9
1
(
o
t
a
m
A

D
)
9
4
s
u
l
u
m
i
t
s
t
c
e
f
f
e
n
i
s
i

n
o
i
s
u
f
n
o
c

t
a
h
t
e
r
e
h
n
o
i
t
i
s
o
p
e
h
t
e
k
a
t
e
W

.
n
o
i
t
a
z
i
l
a
r
e
n
e
g
+
+
.
p
,
1
8
9
1
(
d
n
o
m
a
i
D
)
2
5
a
t
a
h
t
g
n
i
n
a
e
m
r
o
,
d
n
u
o
s
,
e
c
n
a
r
a
e
p
p
a
n
i
k
r
a
m
e
h
t
s
e
l
b
m
e
s
e
r
o
s
)
.
.
.
(

.
d
e
l
s
i
m
r
o
d
e
s
u
f
n
o
c
e
b
o
t
y
l
e
k
i
l
s
i
r
e
s
a
h
c
r
u
p
e
v
i
t
c
e
p
s
o
r
p
+
l
l
a
d
n
e
K
d
n
a
s
e
l
o
r
p
S
)
4
7
2
.
p
,
6
8
9
1
(
e
s
o
o
h
c
o
t
h
c
i
h
w
m
o
r
f
s
e
r
o
t
s
d
n
a
s
d
n
a
r
b
y
n
a
m
e
v
i
e
c
r
e
p
]
s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
[

e
c
n
e
i
r
e
p
x
e
y
e
h
t
,
e
r
o
m
r
e
h
t
r
u
F
.
s
e
c
i
o
h
c
g
n
i
k
a
m
y
t
l
u
c
i
f
f
i
d
e
v
a
h
d
n
a

.
d
a
o
l
r
e
v
o
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i
+
.
p
,
6
8
9
1
(
.
l
a
t
e
n
e
k
o
L
)
6
9
1
e
h
t
n
i
t
l
u
s
e
r
y
a
m
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
s
e
i
t
i
r
a
l
i
m
i
s
l
a
c
i
s
y
h
p
)
.
.
.
(

.
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
e
h
t
y
b
y
t
i
t
n
e
d
i
r
o
n
i
g
i
r
o
f
o
e
c
r
u
o
s
f
o
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
t
a
s
i
m
+
n
e
l
l
a
h
r
e
V
d
n
a
z
s
e
i
o
P
)
3
3
2
.
p
,
9
8
9
1
(
l
e
v
e
l
l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n
i
e
h
t
t
a
s
r
u
c
c
o
t
a
h
t
n
o
n
e
m
o
n
e
h
p
a
s
i
n
o
i
s
u
f
n
o
c
d
n
a
r
B

.
e
r
u
t
a
n
n
i
s
u
o
i
c
s
n
o
c
-
n
o
n
y
l
t
n
a
n
i
m
o
d
e
r
p
s
i
d
n
a
)
.
.
.
(
+
+
+
,
0
9
9
1
(
.
l
a
t
e
n
a
m
x
o
F
)
2
7
1
.
p

.
d
e
s
u
f
n
o
c
e
r
a
y
l
r
a
e
l
c
d
e
l
s
i
m
e
r
a
o
h
w
s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
)

+
+
,
2
9
9
1
(
.
l
a
t
e
n
a
m
x
o
F
)
5
2
1
.
p
d
a
e
l
t
a
h
t
g
n
i
s
s
e
c
o
r
p
l
a
i
t
n
e
r
e
f
n
i
n
i
s
r
o
r
r
e
e
r
o
m
r
o
e
n
o
f
o
s
t
s
i
s
n
o
c
)
.
.
.
(

s
e
t
u
b
i
r
t
t
a
e
h
t
t
u
o
b
a
s
f
e
i
l
e
b
e
t
a
r
u
c
c
a
n
i
m
r
o
f
y
l
g
n
i
w
o
n
k
n
u
o
t
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
a
r
a
i
l
i
m
a
f
e
r
o
m
a
n
o
d
e
s
a
b
d
n
a
r
b
n
w
o
n
k
-
s
s
e
l
a
f
o
e
c
n
a
m
r
o
f
r
e
p
r
o

.
e
c
n
a
m
r
o
f
r
e
p
r
o
s
e
t
u
b
i
r
t
t
a
s

d
n
a
r
b
+
+
.
p
,
5
9
9
1
(
r
e
r
e
f
p
a
K
)
1
0
1

.
s
g
n
i
k
r
a
m
e
v
i
t
c
n
i
t
s
i
d
f
o
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
t
a
t
c
e
r
r
o
c
n
i
n
a
m
o
r
f
s
e
s
i
r
a
)

+
r
o
k
a
h
T
d
n
a
i
l
h
o
K
)
3
1
2
.
p
,
7
9
9
1
(
r
a
l
i
m
i
s
y
l
g
n
i
s
u
f
n
o
c
k
c
i
p
y
a
m
s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r
n
e
h
w
,
n
o
i
s
u
f
n
o
c
)
.
.
.
(

.
s
e
m
a
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
h
t
f
o
d
a
e
t
s
n
i
,
s
e
m
a
n
+
+
n
h
a
K
d
n
a
n
a
m
f
f
u
H
)
3
9
4
;
2
9
4
.
p
,
8
9
9
1
(
d
n
a

g
n
i
s
u
f
n
o
c
e
b
y
a
m
)

(
s
n
o
i
t
p
o
l
a
i
t
n
e
t
o
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n
e
g
u
h
e
h
t

f
o
t
n
e
m
t
r
o
s
s
a
e
d
i
w
a
h
t
i
w
s
e
c
n
e
i
r
e
p
x
e
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
a
n
o
i
s
u
f
n
o
c
e
h
T

y
l
i
r
a
s
s
e
c
e
n
t
o
n
,
y
t
i
x
e
l
p
m
o
c
d
e
v
i
e
c
r
e
p
e
h
t
o
t
e
u
d
s
i
,
r
e
v
e
w
o
h
,
s
n
o
i
t
p
o

.
y
t
e
i
r
a
v
r
o
y
t
i
x
e
l
p
m
o
c
l
a
u
t
c
a
e
h
t
o
t
+
n
i
r
r
o
M
d
n
a
y
b
o
c
a
J
)
7
9
.
p
,
8
9
9
1
(
e
r
e
h
t
,
k
r
a
m
e
d
a
r
t
a
e
s
u
o
t
e
r
e
w
r
e
n
w
o
e
h
t
n
a
h
t
r
e
h
t
o
e
n
o
e
m
o
s
f
I

)
r
e
s
u
r
o
i
n
u
j
r
o
d
n
o
c
e
s
e
h
t
y
b
(
e
s
u
h
c
u
s
t
a
h
t
y
t
i
l
i
b
i
s
s
o
p
e
h
t
e
b
d
l
u
o
w
s
e
k
a
m
y
l
l
a
u
t
c
a
o
h
w
g
n
i
d
r
a
g
e
r
d
e
s
u
f
n
o
c
e
b
o
t
s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
e
s
u
a
c
d
l
u
o
c

.
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
e
h
t
+
d
n
a
l
l
e
h
c
t
i
M
,
9
9
9
1
(
u
o
i
l
i
s
s
a
v
a
p
a
P
)
7
2
3
.
p
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i
s
t
c
e
f
f
a
h
c
i
h
w
d
n
i
m
f
o
e
t
a
t
s
a
s
i
)
.
.
.
(
n
o
i
s
u
f
n
o
C

e
b
e
r
o
f
e
r
e
h
t
y
a
m
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
e
h
T
.
g
n
i
k
a
m
n
o
i
s
i
c
e
d
d
n
a
g
n
i
s
s
e
c
o
r
p

.
n
o
i
s
u
f
n
o
c
f
o
e
r
a
w
a
n
u
r
o
e
r
a
w
a
+
+
+
)
4
2
.
p
,
9
9
9
1
(
h
s
l
a
W
n
i
s
e
s
i
r
a
y
l
i
r
a
m
i
r
p
t
a
h
t
d
n
i
m
f
o
e
t
a
t
s
e
l
b
a
t
r
o
f
m
o
c
n
u
n
a
:
s
i
n
o
i
s
u
f
n
o
C

s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
s
t
c
e
f
f
a
y
l
e
v
i
t
a
g
e
n
h
c
i
h
w
d
n
a
e
s
a
h
p
e
s
a
h
c
r
u
p
-
e
r
p
e
h
t
o
t
d
a
e
l
n
a
c
d
n
a
s
e
i
t
i
l
i
b
a
g
n
i
k
a
m
-
n
o
i
s
i
c
e
d
d
n
a
g
n
i
s
s
e
c
o
r
p
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i

.
s
n
o
i
s
i
c
e
d
l
a
m
i
t
p
o
-
b
u
s
g
n
i
k
a
m
s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
+
+
,
0
0
0
2
(
.
l
a
t
e
l
l
u
b
n
r
u
T
)
5
4
1
.
p
a
p
o
l
e
v
e
d
o
t
e
r
u
l
i
a
f
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
s
a
d
e
n
i
f
e
d
s
i
n
o
i
s
u
f
n
o
c
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
c
)
.
.
.
(

e
h
t
g
n
i
r
u
d
,
e
c
i
v
r
e
s
/
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
a
f
o
s
t
e
c
a
f
s
u
o
i
r
a
v
f
o
n
o
i
t
a
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
n
i
t
c
e
r
r
o
c

.
e
r
u
d
e
c
o
r
p
g
n
i
s
s
e
c
o
r
p
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i
+
+
146 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion
F
I
G
U
R
E

1
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l

M
o
d
e
l

f
o
r

A
n
t
e
c
e
d
e
n
t
s
,

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
,

M
e
d
i
a
t
o
r
s
,

C
o
p
i
n
g

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s

o
f

C
o
n
f
u
s
i
o
n
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 147
Experience can work for or against the consumer with respect
to confusion. Although Foxman et al. (1990) suggest that new triers
and occasional buyers may be especially vulnerable to confusion,
Brengman et al. (2001) found no statistical differences in the
proclivity to similarity antecedents of confusion between light and
heavy product category users. Experienced consumers are less
likely to thoroughly compare the products they buy regularly and
are less likely to be overloaded than inexperienced ones. This is
partly because although they consider a greater number of informa-
tion dimensions, heavy users look at fewer brand alternatives
(Jacoby 1977), and partly because the knowledge that stems from
experience facilitates information processing. Also, firmer product
beliefs, accrued from experience, make consumers selectively
perceptive and reduce consumers scope of search (Neisser 1976).
As consumers gain brand experience their knowledge base ex-
pands, choice alternatives and evaluative attributes become fewer
and they should become less susceptible to all three types of
confusion.
Foxman et al. (1992) suggest that the task definition can
influence the propensity to become confused because it is related to
the importance of a purchase. For example, consumers can be
scrupulous and attentive when buying a gift and thus be less likely
to be confused from similarity antecedents (Balabanis and Craven
1997).
With a low-involvement purchase, confusion from informa-
tion overload is less likely to occur because less information search
and processing takes place. Confusion from ambiguous market
stimuli should be positively correlated with quicker decision mak-
ing because the consumer is less likely to thoroughly examine
ambiguous product information. In high-involvement contexts, the
decision maker will put greater effort into making choices by
adopting decision styles that involve more deliberation and evalu-
ation and this may help to avoid confusion (Foxman et al. 1992).
However, greater effort is only likely to reduce the incidence of
confusion if two conditions hold, namely, 1) that the information is
available and comprehensible, and 2) that the consumer has the
processing ability to analyze the information. If either of these two
conditions is not met, consumers could easily become more con-
fused as they increase the purchase evaluation effort.
Consequences of Confusion
We suggest that attribution theory serves to determine some of
the consequences of confusion. The more consumers attribute their
confusion to external company sources, the greater will be the effect
on company-related consequences. Although no study has system-
atically investigated the outcomes of consumer confusion, it has
been associated with several unfavorable consequences, such as,
negative word-of-mouth (Turnbull et al. 2000), dissatisfaction
(Zaichkowsky 1995; Foxman et al. 1990), cognitive dissonance
(Mitchell and Papavassiliou 1999), decision postponement (e.g.,
Jacoby and Morrin 1998; Huffman and Kahn 1998), shopping
fatigue (Mitchell and Papavassiliou 1997), reactance (Settle and
Alreck 1988), decreased loyalty and trust and confusing other
consumers (Foxman et al. 1992; 1990). We propose that there are
two temporally-distinct consequence categories. The first relates to
the immediate effects of confusion. The second relates to actions
aimed to cope with, reduce or eliminate confusion.
Overload-confused consumers are likely to interrupt decision
making in order to take measures that allow them to deal with the
information load by separating important from less important
information, narrowing the choice set or reducing the number of
attributes on which the decision is based (e.g., Iyengar and Lepper
2000). The situations in which no decision postponement takes
place are when a consumer unknowingly acts because of
subconscious confusion, e.g., buying an imitator brand believing it
is the original.
When choice rather than abandonment is the result of confu-
sion, the same possible negative consequences for all three types of
confusion on choice can be: a) a known alteration in brand choice
caused by a lack of understanding, b) the same choice, but made
with undue amounts of uncertainty, misunderstanding, frustration
and dissonance, c) the same choice, but poor or non-maximal
product utilization caused by inadequate understanding, d) the
same choice, but an inability to inform others about the product or
misinform them which may create problems for others, e) the same
or different choice depending on the outcome of a delay designed
to clarify the choice by using confusion reduction strategies.
Finally, there is a tendency in the literature to regard confusion as
akin to (a reverse) hygiene factor in the consumer decision-
making; its presence causes dissatisfaction, but its absence does not
motivate consumers to purchase and does not necessarily lead to
satisfaction. This is likely because the experience of confusion can
be rather unpleasant, the eventual outcome or consequences flow-
ing from it can be negative. The hygiene analogy gives a negative
view of confusion, which we contend for the most part to be correct.
However, it is conceivable that confusion will have positive conse-
quences. For example, if a consumer employs confusion reduction
strategies and successfully copes with his/her confusion, it could
lead to decreased pre-purchasing dissonance or increased satisfac-
tion. In the following section we offer further specific insights into
the potential impact of confusion from all three types of antecedents
on consumers behavior.
Confusion from Similarity Antecedents and Related Outcomes
Stimulus similarity is likely to lead to a delay or abandonment
of decision making because when consumers are aware that there is
at least a possibility that they are about to buy a brand they did not
intend to, they are likely to take more time to find out whether the
(two or more) alternatives are actually the same. Consumers may
also abandon a purchase altogether (no-choice option) because
they want to avoid making difficult trade-offs (e.g., Dhar 1997).
Other studies have reported similar findings that consumers are
more likely to select a no-choice option when both alternatives are
attractive (e.g., Luce 1998). The relevance of confusion from
similarity antecedents to social interaction is because consumers
sometimes feel ashamed of being unable to differentiate between
brands. Consumers who are duped are not always likely to share
their negative experience which they see as their own fault.
We expect consumers inability to differentiate between stimuli
(i.e., perceived stimulus similarity) to cause dissatisfaction directed
towards one manufacturer that clearly imitates the other. This is
partly because of the time and effort needed to assess the authentic-
ity of the alternatives and these opportunity costs yield no utility
(Foxman et al. 1990). What is worst still for the original manufac-
turer, is if the consumer does not realize that he/she has bought an
imitator brand and attributes any resultant dissatisfaction to the
original brand.
Brand loyalty is also likely to be affected by confusion caused
by similar stimuli (Mitchell and Papavassiliou 1999) because
confused consumers, who perceive stimulus similarity and have
trouble distinguishing products and manufacturers, will find it
difficult to reward a manufacturer with their trust. In this context,
Zaichkowsky and Simpson (1996) argue that perceived brand
similarity can change consumers attitudes about the uniqueness of
the national brand. Consumers trust is likely to reduce because they
will not know which the right alternative is and which manufac-
turer to trust (Lau and Lee 1999).
148 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion
Confusion from Information Overload and Related Outcomes
Overload-confused consumers are likely to interrupt decision
making in order to take measures that allow them to deal with the
information load by separating important from less important
information, narrowing the choice set or reducing the number of
attributes on which the decision is based. Since stimulus overload
can be attributed to a lack of (processing) time, delaying the
purchase decision can be interpreted as an attempt to gain more
processing time. However, expending a greater effort to arrive at a
decision without gaining a perceivable utility can lead to consumer
dissatisfaction (Turnbull et al. 2000). Perceived overload, caused
by too many stimuli, can cause stress on part of the consumer and
dissatisfaction.
As brand loyalty reflects habitual purchasing and requires less
decision making, information seeking and brand evaluation, the
prospect of having to do less information processing and compari-
son is likely to be appreciated by those consumers who are prone to
stimulus overload confusion. Therefore, loyalty can be viewed as a
strategic (conscious or non-conscious) reaction to overload. More-
over, Chernev (2003) found that when consumers select a product
from a large assortment it often leads to weaker preferences.
Irrespective of cognitive abilities, consumers tend to feel
better prepared for purchase decisions with a greater amount of
information (Jacoby, Speller, and Berning 1974; Jacoby, Speller,
and Kohn 1974). Since consumers tend to prefer larger stores, with
a greater assortment, to smaller stores with a small assortment
(Hoyer and MacInnis 1997), the over-abundance of products and
information which todays consumers encounter is unlikely to
decrease trust per se.
Confusion from Ambiguous Stimuli and Related Outcomes
Consumers who are confused by unclear stimuli, or who suffer
from partial miscomprehension (i.e., who extract more than one
logically independent meaning), are likely to try to find information
that will help them clarify their choice environment, e.g., by trying
to establish which information is more credible. This will inevitably
involve suspending the decision-making process. When consumers
compare two or more complex products and experience confusion
from ambiguous information, it could lead to choice deferral
because the consumer tries to cope with what is seen as a non-
comparable alternative (Dhar 1997). However, ambiguity-con-
fused consumers are unlikely to engage in negative word-of-mouth
if they attribute their inability to fully use and understand a product
to themselves and not the product manufacturer.
Similar to stimulus overload, ambiguity is likely to cause
consumers to seek ways to make satisfactory decisions on a more
permanent basis and becoming brand loyal equates to making fewer
comparisons, which means consumers are confronted with less
ambiguous or unclear stimuli. Trust can help to reduce the per-
ceived complexity in the environment (Hillmann 1994) because
products that have once been positively evaluated do not need to be
assessed again. From an attribution viewpoint, it is also conceivable
that consumers do not blame manufacturers and retailers for their
perceived ambiguity, but blame themselves, which is unlikely to
entail a withdrawal of trust.
Confusion Reduction/Coping Strategies
When confusion is experienced by consumers, the same
context may (or will) cause different degrees of confusion depend-
ing on the individuals prior skill or competence in information
processing and with respect to the confusion strategies adopted to
cope. An important prerequisite for the use of confusion reduction
strategies (CRS) is that the consumer is aware of the confusion
involved in the decision. Confusion reduction has not been studied
before and this section identifies some strategies which consumers
might use.
In our view, CRS are, in the main, concerned with clarifying
a choice, reducing ambiguity and increasing understanding relating
to a purchase decision. We propose that the confused consumer
develops strategies which can be categorized into four generic
approaches, namely; (1) clarify the buying goals, (2) seek addi-
tional information, (3) narrow down the set of alternatives, (4)
share/delegate the purchase decision. The seeking additional in-
formation category mostly consists of strategies which clarify the
choice environment, but can also involve simplifying strategies.
The reduction of confusion caused by similarity and ambiguity
critically depends on the content of the information received, since
additional information which is conflicting will not reduce similar-
ity antecedents and can exacerbate ambiguity. Confused consumers
can often involve other people (i.e., spouse, family member and
friend) in the purchasing decision by asking a person to accompany
them whilst shopping to help them comprehend the choice environ-
ment. Alternatively, they may delegate the task completely.
CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH
This paper stimulates a number of research questions driven
by the proposed model. For example, how is confusion affected by
the decision context, e.g., by the degree of involvement and how is
it affected by purchaser characteristics such as; age, gender and
cognitive style? The role of atmospherics and the overall physical
store environment and its relationship with consumer confusion
would appear complicated and requires further exploration. Indeed,
basic research parameters of confusion need to be established such
as identifying and measuring; antecedents of confusion; modera-
tors and mediators of confusion; reduction strategies and outcomes
of confusion. One outcome which requires further research might
be shopping fatigue. Consumers who experience confusion regu-
larly across different products categories are likely to become more
frustrated with and tired of shopping. To the extent that much of the
information processing and assessment of error and uncertainty are
done without our conscious awareness, we can agree somewhat
with Foxman et al.s (1992) assertion that confusion is concerned
with errors of which the consumer is unaware (at least partially),
because sub-conscious processing of information is a basic condi-
tion driven by our mental limitations vis--vis a complex environ-
ment. This presents a major challenge for the measurement process.
In order to examine some of these ideas, we need to measure
each type of consumer confusion which depends significantly on
the development of a comprehensive confusion scale (e.g., Foxman
et al. 1992). Thus far, no comprehensive scale exists, although some
existing scales may capture elements of the overload confusion
concept, e.g., Reillys (1982) Role Overload of the Wife, Childers,
Houston and Hecklers (1985) Style of Processing Scale and
Sproles and Kendalls (1986) confusion factor in their Consumer
Styles Inventory. There is therefore a need to devise a completely
new scale to measure the degree of confusion caused by similarity
and ambiguity.
REFERENCES
Balabanis, George and Samantha Craven (1997), Consumer
Confusion from Own Brand Lookalikes: An Exploratory
Investigation, Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 299-
313.
Berry, Leonard L. and Manjit S. Yadav (1996), Capture and
Communicate Value in Pricing of Services, Sloan Manage-
ment Review, 37 (4), 41-52.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 149
Brengman, Malaika, Magie Geuens, and Patrick De Pelsmacker
(2001), The impact of consumer characteristics and
campaign related factors on brand confusion in print
advertising, Journal of Marketing Communications, 7 (4),
231-243.
Cahill, Dennis J. (1995), We sure as hell confuse ourselves, but
what about the customers? Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, 13, 5-9.
Chernev, Alexander (2003), When More Is Less and Less Is
More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in
Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September),
170-182.
Childers, Terry L., Michael J. Houston, and Susan Heckler
(1985), Measuring Individual Differences in Visual versus
Verbal Information Processing, Journal of Consumer
Research, 12 (September), 125-131.
Chryssochoidis, George (2000), Repercussions of consumer
confusion for late introduced differentiated products,
European Journal of Marketing, 34, 705-722.
Cohen, Marcel (1999), Insights into consumer confusion,
Consumer Policy Review, 9 (6), 210-213.
Cox, Donald F. (1967), Risk Handling in Consumer Behavior,
in Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer
Behavior, ed. Donald F. Cox, Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press, 34-81.
Darden, William R. and Fred D. Reynolds (1971), Shopping
Orientations and Product Usage Rates, Journal of Market-
ing Research, 8 (Nov.), 505-508.
Dhar, Ravi (1997), Consumer Preference for a No-Choice
Option, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September),
215-231.
Diamond, Sidney A. (1981), Trademark Problems and How to
Avoid Them, Revised Edition, Crain Communications,
Chicago.
Elliott, Michael T. and Paul Surgi Speck (1998), Consumer
Perceptions of Advertising Clutter and Its Impact across
Various Media, Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (1), 29-
41.
Feather, N. T. (1969), Preference for information in relation to
consistency, novelty, intolerance of ambiguity, and dogma-
tism, Australian Journal of Psychology, 21, 235-249.
Foxman, Ellen R., Darrel D. Meuhling, and Phil W. Berger
(1990), An Investigation of Factors Contributing to
Consumer Brand Confusion, Journal of Consumer Affairs,
24, 170-189.
Foxman, Ellen R., Phil W. Berger, and Joseph A. Cole (1992),
Consumer Brand Confusion: A Conceptual Framework,
Psychology and Marketing, 9 (March/April), 123-141.
Gardner, Riley W., Douglas N. Jackson, and Samuel J. Messick
(1960), Personality organization in cognitive controls and
intellectual abilities, Psychological Issues, 2 (4, No. 8), 228-
248.
Glasse, J. (1992), Hang On, Dealerscope Merchandising, 34,
Iss. 8 (Aug.), 10-14, 25.
Goldstein, K. M. and S. Blackman (1977), Assessment of
cognitive style, in Advances in Psychological Assessment, 4,
ed. P. McReynold, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 462-525.
Grewal, Dhruv, Jerry Gotlieb, and Howard Marmorstein (1994),
The Moderating Effects of Message Framing and Source
Credibility on the Price-perceived Risk Relationship,
Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 145-153.
Hillmann, Karl-Heinz (1994), Wrterbuch der Soziologie
[Dictionary of Sociology], Stuttgart: Krner.
Hoyer, Wayne D. and Deborah J. MacInnis (1997), Consumer
Behavior, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Huffman, Cynthia and Barbara E. Kahn (1998), Variety for
Sale: Mass Customization or Mass Confusion? Journal of
Retailing, 74 (4), 491-513.
Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper (2000), When Choice is
Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 995-
1006.
Jacoby, Jacob (1977), Information Load and Decision Quality:
Some Contested Issues, Journal of Marketing Research, 14
(November), 569-573.
Jacoby, Jacob, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Berning (1974),
Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load:
Replication and Extension, Journal of Consumer Research,
1 (February), 33-42.
Jacoby, Jacob, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Kohn (1974),
Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load,
Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (February), 63-64.
Jacoby, Jacob and Maureen Morrin (1998), Not manufactured
or authorized by...: recent federal cases involving trademark
disclaimers, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17, 97-
108.
Jacoby, Jacob and Wayne D. Hoyer (1989), The Comprehen-
sion/Miscomprehension of Print Communication: Selected
Findings, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 434-
443.
Kangun, Norman and Michael J. Polonsky (1995), Regulation
of Environmental Marketing Claims: A Comparative
Perspective, International Journal of Advertising, 13 (4), 1-
24.
Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1995), Stealing brand equity: measuring
perceptual confusion between national brands and copycat
own-label products, Marketing And Research Today (May),
96-102.
Kent, Robert J. and Chris T. Allen (1994), Competitive
Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising:
The Role of Brand Familiarity, Journal of Marketing, 58
(July), 97-105.
Kohli, Chiranjeev and Mrugank Thakor (1997), Branding
consumer goods: insight from theory and practice, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 14, 206-219.
Kolb, David A. (1976), Learning Styles Inventory: Technical
Manual, Boston, MA: McBer and Co.
Lau, Geok Theng and Sook Han Lee (1999), Consumers Trust
in a Brand and the Link to Brand Loyalty, Journal of
Market Focused Management, 4, 341-370.
Loken, Barbara, Ivan Ross, and Ronald L. Hinkle (1986),
Consumer Confusion of Origin and Brand Similarity
Perceptions, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 5,
195-211.
Luce, Mary Frances (1998), Choosing to Avoid: Coping with
Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions, Journal of
Consumer Research, 24 (4), 409-433.
Maheswaran, Durairaj and Joan Meyers-Levy (1990), The
Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement,
Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 361-367.
Mead, G. (1993), Charity in Fashion: A Look at Bennettons
Latest Campaign and Finds Style more Evident than
Substance, Financial Times, Jan. 28, 18.
Miaoulis, George and Nancy DAmato (1978), Consumer
confusion: Trademark infringement, Journal of Marketing,
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.