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 ID: 8837
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document " Advances in Consumer Research Volume ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
in which a revision of understanding occurs. We argue that are aware of the two brands (e.g., Johnnie Walker and whisky). Similarity in advertisements and commercial because of the of individuals in infor- incurred; Shugan 1980). We define overload confu- food market not because there may be too many similar exert a moderating influence because may reduce confusion through an experience differences may also be distinguished be- when buying an imitator instead of an and deci- consumer usually tries to buy products of may be particularly prone to overload consumers want the best individuals impose organization upon vi- refers to the extent to which individuals such as shopping under constraints should increase overload refers to the presence of others and opinions Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 145TABLE 1Definitions of Consumer Confusion and their Classification Òecneirepxeyeht,eromrehtruF.seciohcgnikamytluciffidevahdnaÓ.daolrevonoitamrofni+.p,6891(.latenekoL)691ehtnitluseryamstcudorpneewtebseitiralimislacisyhp)...(ÒÓ.remusnocehtybytitnedironigirofoecruosfonoitubirttasim+nellahreVdnazseioP)332.p,9891(levellaudividniehttasruccotahtnonemonehpasinoisufnocdnarBÒÓ.erutannisuoicsnoc-nonyltnanimoderpsidna)...(++++++ 146 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer ConfusionFIGURE 1Conceptual Model for Antecedents, Moderators, Mediators, Coping Strategies and Consequences of Confusion scope of search (Neisser 1976). can purchase, confusion from informa- contexts, the theory serves to determine some of factor in the consumer decision- flow- analogy gives a negative because when consumers are aware that there is inability to differentiate between stimuli attitudes about the uniqueness of trust is likely to reduce because they alternative is and which manufac- adopted to category mostly consists of strategies which clarify the and Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 32) / 149Brengman, Malaika, Magie Geuens, and Patrick De Pelsmacker(2001), ÒThe impact of consumer characteristics andcampaign related factors on brand confusion in printadvertising,Ó Journal of Marketing Communications, 7 (4),231-243.Cahill, Dennis J. (1995), ÒWe sure as hell confuse ourselves, butwhat about the customers?Ó Marketing Intelligence andPlanning, 13, 5-9.Chernev, Alexander (2003), ÒWhen More Is Less and Less IsMore: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment inChoice,Ó Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September),170-182.(1985), ÒMeasuring Individual Differences in Visual versusVerbal Information Processing,Ó Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12 (September), 125-131.Chryssochoidis, George (2000), ÒRepercussions of consumerconfusion for late introduced differentiated products,ÓEuropean Journal of Marketing, 34, 705-722.Cohen, Marcel (1999), ÒInsights into consumer confusion,ÓConsumer Policy Review, 9 (6), 210-213.Cox, Donald F. (1967), ÒRisk Handling in Consumer Behavior,Óin Risk Taking and Information Handling in ConsumerBehavior, ed. Donald F. Cox, Boston, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 34-81.Darden, William R. and Fred D. Reynolds (1971), ÒShoppingOrientations and Product Usage Rates,Ó Journal of Market-ing Research, 8 (Nov.), 505-508.Dhar, Ravi (1997), ÒConsumer Preference for a No-ChoiceOption,Ó Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September),215-231.Diamond, Sidney A. (1981), Trademark Problems and How toAvoid Them, Revised Edition, Crain Communications,Chicago.Elliott, Michael T. and Paul Surgi Speck (1998), ÒConsumerPerceptions of Advertising Clutter and Its Impact acrossVarious Media,Ó Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (1), 29-41.Feather, N. T. (1969), ÒPreference for information in relation toconsistency, novelty, intolerance of ambiguity, and dogma-tism,Ó Australian Journal of Psychology, 21, 235-249.Foxman, Ellen R., Darrel D. Meuhling, and Phil W. Berger(1990), ÒAn Investigation of Factors Contributing toConsumer Brand Confusion,Ó Journal of Consumer Affairs,24, 170-189.Foxman, Ellen R., Phil W. Berger, and Joseph A. Cole (1992),ÒConsumer Brand Confusion: A Conceptual Framework,ÓPsychology and Marketing, 9 (March/April), 123-141.Gardner, Riley W., Douglas N. Jackson, and Samuel J. Messick(1960), ÒPersonality organization in cognitive controls andintellectual abilities,Ó Psychological Issues, 2 (4, No. 8), 228-248.Glasse, J. (1992), ÒHang On,Ó Dealerscope Merchandising, 34,Iss. 8 (Aug.), 10-14, 25.Goldstein, K. M. and S. Blackman (1977), ÒAssessment ofcognitive styleÓ, in Advances in Psychological Assessment, 4,ed. P. McReynold, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 462-525.Grewal, Dhruv, Jerry Gotlieb, and Howard Marmorstein (1994),ÒThe Moderating Effects of Message Framing and SourceCredibility on the Price-perceived Risk Relationship,ÓJournal 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), ConsumerBehavior, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Huffman, Cynthia and Barbara E. Kahn (1998), ÒVariety forSale: Mass Customization or Mass Confusion?Ó Journal ofRetailing, 74 (4), 491-513.Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper (2000), ÒWhen Choice isDemotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?ÓJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 995-1006.Jacoby, Jacob (1977), ÒInformation Load and Decision Quality:Some Contested Issues,Ó Journal of Marketing Research, 14(November), 569-573.Jacoby, Jacob, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Berning (1974),ÒBrand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load:Replication and Extension,Ó Journal of Consumer Research,1 (February), 33-42.Jacoby, Jacob, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Kohn (1974),ÒBrand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load,ÓJournal of Marketing Research, 11 (February), 63-64.Jacoby, Jacob and Maureen Morrin (1998), ÒÔNot manufacturedor authorized by...Õ: recent federal cases involving trademarkdisclaimers,Ó Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17, 97-108.Jacoby, Jacob and Wayne D. Hoyer (1989), ÒThe Comprehen-sion/Miscomprehension of Print Communication: SelectedFindings,Ó Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 434-443.Kangun, Norman and Michael J. Polonsky (1995), ÒRegulationof Environmental Marketing Claims: A ComparativePerspective,Ó International Journal of Advertising, 13 (4), 1-24.Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1995), ÒStealing brand equity: measuringperceptual confusion between national brands and «copycat«own-label products,Ó Marketing And Research Today (May),96-102.Kent, Robert J. and Chris T. Allen (1994), ÒCompetitiveInterference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising:The Role of Brand Familiarity,Ó Journal of Marketing, 58(July), 97-105.Kohli, Chiranjeev and Mrugank Thakor (1997), ÒBrandingconsumer goods: insight from theory and practice,Ó Journalof Consumer Marketing, 14, 206-219.Kolb, David A. (1976), Learning Styles Inventory: TechnicalManual, Boston, MA: McBer and Co.Lau, Geok Theng and Sook Han Lee (1999), ÒConsumersÕ Trustin a Brand and the Link to Brand Loyalty,Ó Journal ofMarket Focused Management, 4, 341-370.Loken, Barbara, Ivan Ross, and Ronald L. Hinkle (1986),ÒConsumer Confusion of Origin and Brand SimilarityPerceptions,Ó Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 5,195-211.Luce, Mary Frances (1998), ÒChoosing to Avoid: Coping withNegatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,Ó Journal ofConsumer Research, 24 (4), 409-433.Maheswaran, Durairaj and Joan Meyers-Levy (1990), ÒTheInfluence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement,ÓJournal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 361-367.Mead, G. (1993), ÒCharity in Fashion: A Look at BennettonÕsLatest Campaign and Finds Style more Evident thanSubstance,Ó Financial Times, Jan. 28, 18.Miaoulis, George and Nancy D«Amato (1978), ÒConsumerconfusion: Trademark infringement,Ó Journal of Marketing,42, 45-55. 150 / Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer ConfusionMidgley, David F. and Grahame R. Dowling (1978),ÒInnovativeness: The concept and its measurement,Ó Journalof Consumer Research, 4, 229-242.Miller, George A. (1956), ÒThe Magical Number Seven, Plus orMinus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for ProcessingInformation,Ó Psychological Review, 63 (March), 81-92.Mitchell, Vincent-Wayne and Vassilios Papavassiliou (1997),ÒExploring the Concept of Consumer Confusion,Ó MarketIntelligence & Planning, 15 (April-May), 164-169.Mitchell, Vincent-Wayne and Vassilios Papavassiliou (1999),ÒMarket Causes and Implications of Consumer Confusion,ÓJournal of Product & Brand Management, 8, 319-339.Neisser, Ulric (1976), Cognition and Reality, San Francisco,California: W.H. Freeman.Pinson, C. (1978), ÒConsumer Cognitive Styles: Review andImplications for MarketersÓ, in ÒMarketing: Neue Ergebnisseaus Forschung und PraxisÓ, ed. E. Topritzhofer, Dusseldorf,Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.Poiesz, Theo B. C. and Theo M. M. Verhallen (1989), ÒBrandConfusion in Advertising,Ó International Journal ofAdvertising, 8, 231-244.Reilly, Michael D. (1982), ÒWorking Wives and ConvenienceConsumption,Ó Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March),407-418.Roberts, L. (1995), ÒOFT to probe policies ÔconfusionÕÓ, TheIndependent, 20 May.Settle, Robert B. and Pamela L. Alreck (1988), ÒHyperchoiceshapes the Marketplace,Ó Marketing Communications, 13 (5,May), 15-20, 61.Shugan, Steven M. (1980), ÒThe Cost of Thinking,Ó Journal ofConsumer Research, 7 (2, September), 99-111.Simon, Herbert A. (1962), ÒThe Architecture of Complexity,ÓProceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106,467-82.Sproles, George B. (1985), ÒFrom Perfectionism to Fadism:Measuring ConsumersÕ Decision-Making Styles,Ó Proceed-ings, American Council on Consumer Interests, 79-85.Sproles, George B. and Elizabeth Kendall (1986), ÒA Methodol-ogy for Profiling ConsumersÕ Decision-Making Styles,ÓJournal of Consumer Affairs, 20 (2), 267-279.Sproles, George B. and Elizabeth Kendall (1990), ÒConsumerDecision-Making Styles as a Function of Individual LearningStyles,Ó Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24 (1), 134-147.Turnbull, Peter W., Sheena Leek, and Grace Ying (2000),ÒCustomer Confusion: The Mobile Phone Market,Ó Journalof Marketing Management, 16 (January-April), 143-163.Walsh, Gianfranco (1999), German Consumer Decision-MakingStyles 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), ÒConsumer Confusion Over the Significance ofMeat Attributes: The Case of Veal,Ó Journal of ConsumerPolicy, 25, 65-88.Winakor, Geitel, B. Canton, and L. Wolins (1980), ÒPerceivedFashion Risk and Self Esteem of Males and Females,Ó HomeEconomics Research Journal, 9 (1, Sep.), 45-56.Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1995), Defending your BrandAgainst Imitation: Consumer Behavior, Marketing Strate-gies, and Legal Issues, Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books.Zaichkowsky, Judith L. and R. Neil Simpson (1996), ÒThe effectof experience with a brand imitator on the original brand,ÓMarketing Letters, 7 (1), 31-39.