Implementar normas institucionales razonables y regulaciones en casos donde los derechos de propiedad no pueden ser establecidos

Moving to a broader topic, several psychological states which have found wide application in psychological and consumer behaviour research seem to share theoretical grounds with confusion. In this section, a demarcation of the terms will be attempted in order to clarify the distinction but also the relationship between consumer confusion and a) cognitive dissonance, b) uncertainty and perceived risk and finally, c) irritation/ frustration.

3.6.1. Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance theory and research dominated social psychology from the 1950s until the 1970s (Cooper, 2007). The theory is based on Leon Festinger’s suggestion that when an individual holds two or more elements of knowledge (cognitions) that are inconsistent with one another, a state of discomfort (dissonance) is created. Festinger (1957) further indicates that persons are motivated by the unpleasant state of dissonance to engage in ‘psychological work’ so as to reduce the inconsistency, and this work will typically support the cognition most resistant to change.

In 1956, Brehm examined dissonance theory’s predictions for post-decision processing. According to the theory, following a decision, all of the cognitions that favour the chosen alternative are consonant with the decision, while all the cognitions that support the rejected alternative are dissonant. The greater the number and importance of dissonant cognitions and the lesser the number and importance of consonant cognitions, the greater the degree of dissonance experienced by the individual. Thus, in a decision situation, dissonance is typically greater the closer the alternatives are in attractiveness, as long as each alternative has several distinguishing characteristics. Dissonance caused by a

57

decision can be reduced by changing attitudes or by viewing the chosen alternative as more attractive and/or viewing the rejected alternative as less attractive.

Comparing the two states, both cognitive dissonance and confusion have a substantial influence to the way consumers experience shopping situations due to the uncomfortable state they might find themselves into. However, confusion acts at the point of decision by making decisions more difficult and has been described as the cause or multiplier of dissonance, which in consumer environments is usually a post-decision process (Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1997). Conclusively, dissonance is an unpleasant state which occurs after a difficult shopping decision has already taken place rather than at the context of purchase like confusion.

3.6.2. Buying Risk and Uncertainty

The concepts of perceived risk and uncertainty have established their own research traditions in consumer behaviour research (Mitchell, 1999). The two terms have been used interchangeably by consumer behaviour researchers but Knight, already in 1948, coined a distinction between the terms. According to Knight (1948, p. 19–20), risk has a known probability while uncertainty exists when knowledge of a precise probability is lacking. However, known probabilities are extremely rare and consumers are very unlikely to think in terms of them. A further demarcation of these two terms goes far beyond the scopes of this report; it is suffice to argue that both risk and uncertainty approaches share the same overall characteristics, pointing to: the probability of a loss, a perceived non-agreement between expectations and reality and the subjective feeling of possible unfavourable consequences (Urbany et al., 1989; Dowling & Staelin, 1994; Mitchell, 1998).

A linguistic-psychological analysis by Storm and Storm, (1987, p. 813) argues that the two groups of emotional words, one characterised by confusion (confusion, baffled,

58

bewilderment, puzzled) and another distinct one characterised by uncertainty (uncertain, hesitant, doubt, reluctant) are differentiated based on organisation, or control. Terms in the confusion group convey lack of control in a cognitive sense; those in the uncertainty convey lack of resolution rather than lack of control.

In terms of consumer behaviour, Schweizer (2004, p. 32) places the distinction between risky and confusing situations in the context of products/situations involved. Risky situations usually involve expected product attributes (e.g. the life time of a computer) rather than actual product characteristics (e.g. the PC configuration). Thus consumers feel the risk factor about attributes that are important but unknown, future aspects but feel confused about contradicting, ambiguous or abundant actual information they receive on different products.

It is true however that in order for consumers to reduce the degree of perceived risk, uncertainty and the probability of negative consequences occurring, they will increase their information search activity (Mitchell, 1992). Along with more information search, consumers use other strategies to reduce risk like remaining brand loyal and postponing decisions. These risk reduction strategies are nearly the same with the ones identified as confusion reduction strategies (Mitchell & Papavassiliou; 1999; Walsh & Mitchell, 2007; 2010).

Confusion bears then connections and differences with risk and uncertainty. There is still room for further research to clearly demonstrate the direction and nature of this relationship but the evidence is for the treatment of these states as distinct, as far as these can be differentiated based on the aforementioned characteristics.

59

3.6.3. Irritation/Frustration

In the domain of human behaviour, Roseman (1991) suggests that frustration will occur in a situation in which a negative outcome happens, when a positive outcome is desired. That is, the current situation is perceived as being caused by circumstances that are again inconsistent with current motives, and result in punishment or absence of reward. This description is very similar with the way confusion has been described elsewhere (Ellsworth, 2003). However, an additional and main proposition of confusion is a lack of understanding of the situation and lack of control of the ideal way to act. It seems then that the two states share much in common but confusion is much more characterised by intense helplessness/ indecisiveness while frustration more simply by bother or irritation.

3.7. Conclusion

Extending on the debate on whether marketing concepts should be evened with their antecedents, their outcomes or are better perceived as a process (on this same point see especially the example of consumer satisfaction- Yi, 1990 or that of trust- Mayer et al., 1995), it seems that confusion has safely found its conceptualisation based on its antecedents (or triggers). One of the scales examining the confusion construct derives from the realm of cognitive psychology (similarity, ambiguity and overload) while the other from environmental psychology which contains elements grounded on the concept of atmospherics (stimuli novelty, variety, reliability etc.).

The current state of research debates the concept of confusion based broadly on the following topics:

1) Confusion can be both a conscious and subconscious state. Most relevant research claims that only the conscious part is easily accessible to the researchers (Mitchell et al., 2005).

60

2) It is a state that until recently has been described as caused by individually perceived environmental stimuli.

3) It occurs during decision-making situations (situation specific). It has also been attributed the property of a personality trait, meaning that certain personalities have the tendency to be/feel/report confused and some not.

4) Consumer confusion has been described as a cause of negative emotions (an important response driver). The exact relationship however between confusion and emotions comprises a neglected area of research (for an exemption see Schweizer, 2004).

5) According to the extant literature, consumer confusion leads to the avoidance of certain stimuli, taking the form of specific reduction strategies (e.g. reliance on heuristics, status quo bias, downsizing consideration set, choice deferral, reduced info search as in Kasper et al., 2010) or other behavioural acts (ask help from a member of staff, change retail store, complaint, negative word of mouth).

Following the exploration of consumer confusion, the next chapter will lead the reader to a different chapter of consumer behaviour, that of the distinction between the contextual and the intentional stance and the implications of intentional behaviourism. The exploration of the two ways of doing research will lead to a meaningful bridging of the two approaches resulting to the conceptual framework of this research.

61