Sophisticated but confused: The impact of brand extension and motivation on source confusion

Abstract

Legal and consumer psychology scholars have focused recent attention on source confusion, which is the likelihood that consumers will be confused regarding the company that is a product's source or sponsor. The authors evaluate two potential antecedents of source confusion: (1) consumer motivation and (2) a brand extension that has been undertaken by a competitor. There have been disagreements in the courts, the scholarly legal literature, and the consumer psychology literature concerning the nature and extent of the impact of these two variables on the likelihood of consumer confusion. Based on schema theory, the authors hypothesize that consumer motivation and brand extension will influence the likelihood of source confusion. An interaction between the two variables is proposed, with consumer motivation having an effect that is opposite to the effect typically identified in the literature and case law. The results of a controlled laboratory experiment support the theoretical predictions.

The Impact of Consumer Confusion on Nutrition Literacy and Subsequent Dietary Behavior

“…Consumer confusion has been addressed in several marketing and policy domains (Chen & Chang, 2013;DeRosia, Lee & Christensen, 2011;Kearney & Mitchell, 2001;Leek & Chansawatkit, 2006;Mitchell, Lennard, & McGoldrick, 2003;Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1999;Walsh & Mitchell, 2010;West, Larue, Gendron & Scott, 2002), and can help frame the various 13 dimensions of nutrition knowledge, and literacy previously discussed. There are several consumer confusion (quasi) definitions in the extant literature, and common to all of them is the view that confusion arises out of (mis)information overload present in the decision-making environment, coupled with consumers' inability to correctly interpret the many dimensions of products or services through information processing activity (Mitchell et al, 2005;Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1999;Turnbull, Leek & Ying, 2000).…”

“…actually using that knowledge in food shopping choices, preparation, and consumption), and the capacity, opportunity, and motivation to act on that nutrition knowledge in various food situations, and contexts (i.e. self-efficacy in food choices, preparation, and consumption).The issue is that if consumers acquire flawed or poor conceptual knowledge -or what Brucks (1985), Park et al (1994), andMattila andWirtz (2002) refer to as objective knowledgethis will also lead to poor procedural knowledge, and hence inadequate nutrition literacy.Therefore, consumers could be failing to implement healthy dietary behaviors not because they fail to respond to healthy eating communications, but rather because they do so from their level of nutrition understanding, gained through misleading or misinterpreted information sources.Flawed conceptual nutrition knowledge may be resulting in the implementation of dietary changes that go against the intentions of health messages, and this is where the consumer confusion literature can enable an enhanced understanding of such issues.Consumer confusion has been addressed in several marketing and policy domains (Chen & Chang, 2013;DeRosia, Lee & Christensen, 2011;Kearney & Mitchell, 2001;Leek & Chansawatkit, 2006;Mitchell, Lennard, & McGoldrick, 2003;Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1999;Walsh & Mitchell, 2010;West, Larue, Gendron & Scott, 2002), and can help frame the various 13 dimensions of nutrition knowledge, and literacy previously discussed. There are several consumer confusion (quasi) definitions in the extant literature, and common to all of them is the view that confusion arises out of (mis)information overload present in the decision-making environment, coupled with consumers' inability to correctly interpret the many dimensions of products or services through information processing activity (Mitchell et al, 2005;Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1999;Turnbull, Leek & Ying, 2000).…”

How confusion impacts product labeling perceptions

“…Confusion is relevant for many marketing issues: disclaimers (Green and Armstrong, 2012), financial disclosures (Perry and Blumenthal, 2012), brands (DeRosia et al , 2011), nutrition literacy (Cornish and Moraes, 2015) and trademark infringement (Howard et al , 2000). While commonly discussed as an important outcome variable, confusion is rarely conceptualized.…”

Brand Identification by Product Design: The Impact of Evaluation Mode and Familiarity

“…Lawsuits addressing trademark and design patent infringements hinge upon whether “reasonably prudent buyers” (McCarthy, , § 23.27) are likely to confuse the copycat with the original brand. The law's commonsense assumption is that prudent buyers are consumers in the product category (Bednall et al., ) and that they are able to process product information correctly (DeRosia, Lee, & Christensen, ). Product familiarity, defined as “the number of product‐related experiences that have been accumulated by the consumer” (Alba & Hutchinson, , p. 411), appears to be a reasonable proxy measure for consumer prudence.…”

“…In turn, copycats gain from the image of an original brand and elicit perceptions of similar quality. Thus, copycats free ride on the brand equity of leading brands and can confuse consumers (DeRosia, Lee, & Christensen, 2011;Miaoulis & D'Amato, 1978).…”