How confusion impacts product labeling perceptions

Abstract

Purpose Consumer confusion is an often discussed, but seldom investigated, construct central to marketing. This study aims to conceptualize consumer confusion as an intellectual emotion with cognitive and emotional components, and examine it in the context of qualified health claims and conflicting marketplace information. Design/methodology/approach A between-subjects experimental design is used to test the hypotheses. Findings Structural equation modeling suggests that weak science discussions and conflicting information on dietary supplements evoke consumer confusion. Confusion, in turn, impacts scientific certainty perceptions, product quality and firm credibility. Incorporating confusion measures in theoretical models significantly increases the amount of variance explained in consumer perceptions. Implications are offered for businesses, consumer behaviorists and public policymakers. Originality/value It is hard to think about many of marketing’s focal issues (e.g. trademark theory, disclosures and warnings, advertising deception, search and shopping behavior) without using the term confusion. While confusion is central to discussions of these domains, it has evaded focused attention and study. Indeed, no previous research in marketing has directly addressed the experience of consumer confusion per se. The current research fills a gap in the marketing literature by explicitly defining the construct of confusion and offering a measurement approach that is easily adapted to many business/consumer interactions. Furthermore, the authors demonstrate the role of confusion in the context of qualified health claims by showing how conflicting information between health claims, qualifiers and external information can create confusion, and in turn, lead to negative consumer perceptions.

Negative emotions, positive actions: Food safety and consumer intentions to purchase ethical food in China

“…Confusion can result in negative outcomes, overwhelming consumers and causing decision paralysis, irrational decision making, brand disloyalty, dissatisfaction, decision postponement, or avoidance behavior (Garaus & Wagner, 2016;Walsh & Mitchell, 2010;Walsh et al 2007). Furthermore, confusion reduces scientific certainty, has a negative influence on perceived quality, and can harm firm credibility (Fitzgerald, Russo Donovan, Kees, & Kozup, 2019).…”

Patient susceptibility to over‐trust: The case of off‐label prescribing

“…FDA's own work testing three different methods of communicating scientific certainty disclaimers found none were effective in mitigating "consumer perceptions of the level of scientific evidence for a claim as compared to an unqualified claim," nor had the ability to "convey distinct levels of scientific evidence for health claims (Choinière & Verrill, 2009). Additionally, consumers find the idea of "weak" scientific evidence as confusing (Fitzgerald et al, 2019). Given this, we suspect that a written disclosure cannot effectively convey the information needed to attenuate the biases resulting from over-trust.…”

Beware the predatory shopper: exploring social vigilantism and proactivity in the exploitation of online pricing mistakes

“…Such shoppers have even been shown to create a persona that differs from their usual offline identities (Suler, 2004). Acting as this online alter-ego, predatory shoppers aim to take advantage of an online retailer or influence others while saying or doing things they would not do in an offline setting (Denegri‐Knott, 2006; Fitzgerald et al , 2019).…”