Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol.

02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

Postponable Purchasing of Confused Consumer; The Moderating Role of


Perceived Risk And Income Between Consumer Confusion Proneness &
Decision Postponement
Sajid Iqbal1, Naqash Ahmad 2, Nadeem Iqbal 3, Naveed Ahmad 4
1, 2

MS Scholars Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad, Pakistan


Head of Management Sciences, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan
4
Head of Management and Social Sciences, Indus International Institute, Dera Ghazi Khan,
Pakistan
Corresponding Author: naveedahmad@indusdgk.edu.pk
3

ABSTRACT
The major objective of the study was to develop a model and to test consumer confusion in
mobile phone industry of Pakistan. The present study mainly attempted to analyze consumers
basic attitudes i.e. consumer confusion in an under-researched country i.e. Pakistan. So the
model examines the impact and outcomes of consumer confusion with moderating effect of
perceived risk and personal income level. Results have given some novel findings specifically in
Pakistani culture and Pakistani mobile phone markets. While all scaled demographics are found
insignificant relation and similarity confusion is found insignificantly associated with decision
postponement. But overload and ambiguity confusion is found significant. Moreover perceived
risk is found fully insignificant but personal income is only found significant with ambiguity
confusion.
Key Words: Consumer Confusion, Similarity Confusion, Perceived Risk, Personal Income,
Decision Postponement

INTRODUCTION
Researchers from the last many years have paid attention to consumer confusion and to its
antecedents. The important feature of the market is the plethora of options available in market
(Walsh et al., 2007). Confusion arises due to various brands choices and overload, which is
through put by disturbance of responsiveness that makes consumer agitated and tensed (Mitchell
& Papavasiliou, 1999; Walsh, Thuru & Mitchell, 2010). Today consumer markets are perfectly
comparative and differentiated, providing plenty of choices to end users. Therefore, three main
streams of confusion proneness are found Similarity proneness, Ambiguity Proneness and
1
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

Overload Proneness (Walsh et al., 2009). However, overload proneness due to choice and
information overload, similarity proneness and ambiguity proneness leverages leads to consumer
decisions to postponement (Dany, 2007; Memi, 2012; Chen & Chang, 2013; Wang & Shukla,
2013). Moreover, Hills et al. (2013) have found similar results as consumer confusion in their
study.
Such factors pinches consumers not to incorporate a rationale decision but to postpone it, while
postponement is the choice deferral found in a decision and found significant to e. consumers
because of overload and other pronenesss (Lucian & Farias, 2009). Mainly, technological
advancements and unawareness of consumers also leads to postponement (Davasenathipati &
Saravanan, 2013). Therefore, a limited research has been conducted on the relationship between
consumer confusion and decision postponement in Pakistan. Hence these findings will help the
consumers regarding to overcome their confusion and decision postponement.
Moreover, postponement is also caused by interplay of sensed risk (Taylor, 2000). Perceived risk
is the level of uncertainty during purchase decision, in concern to purchase anxieties that pinches
consumers mental perception and gravity of risk (Conchar et al., 2004). Later on Zheng et al.
(2012) investigated perceived risk in Chinese context and found the similar results of
postponement, with marginal differences of rituals to e. shopping. Therefore, perceived risk has
been found as moderator among the relationship of consumer confusion and decision
postponement (Perez & Garcia, 2012). And most of the end users postpones their decisions on
the bases of price and their income level (Brandt and Holz, 2006; Angeli, Valanedis & Bonk,
2003). Because Consumer confusion can leads to product purchase avoidance. According to
prospect theory of Kahenamen and Tversky, (1979) stated that people values gains and losses
differently and decisions will be based on perceived gains and perceived losses.
Consumer confusion has been slighter investigated but recently the theorist have focused to
investigate such brand resemblance in every dimension of consumer behavior. However,
previous studies have been conducted mostly in western countries and there are no such studies
in Asian context (Bhatnagar, 2007). According to Aycan at al. (2000) Pakistan is under
researched country, therefore the relationship between consumer confusion and decision
postponement has been limited studied in Asian context. Moreover, it is less investigated as
moderators in Pakistan.
However, this paper has important implications for theorists and practitioners. This study will
play a significant role in understanding consumers perceived risk as a moderator between
consumer confusion proneness and its outcomes for theorists will be discussed, that will help
marketers to understand the psyche of consumers. This concept is also important for
organizations because of the alarming outcomes of consumer confusion proneness like as
reduced sales, reduced customer satisfaction, negative word of mouth, difficulty of effectively
communicating with customers, reduced brand loyalty, reduced profit and consumer decision
2
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

postponement. On the other hand it must be understandable for the manufacturers and retailers
that offering huge line extensions might not always be amicable for consumers and brings hurtful
outcomes. Moreover, such study provides a clear direction to consumer behavior researchers by
presenting new dimension in study. So mainly three questions are focused in this study. Firstly,
to what extent the relationship exists between consumer confusion and decision postponement in
Pakistan and to what extent consumer confusion is moderated by perceived risk and income
level. Hence, the research objectives are categorized to find the extent of consumer confusion on
decision postponement and its moderation consequences between consumer confusion and
decision postponement.
This paper is distributed into three main segments, beginning with literature review that
represents the concept of variables of model and explore the results and explanations of previous
studies in this context. In the next segment methodology regarding research design is discussed
and analyses are also discussed. The last segment explains the findings, conclusion and
managerial implications.
LITRATURE REVIEW
Similarity Confusion
Similarity confusion is originated as branch of consumer confusion, defined as propensity to
think as different products in different category are symbolically and functionally homogeneous
(Walsh et al., 2007). In other words, similarity confusion emerges due to homogeneous products
and brands features (Matzler & Waiguny, 2005). So similarity confusion arises due to similar
variety of divisional products that turns consumer behavior to purchase of bogus product (Walsh
et al., 2010). While Kapferer, (1995); Kasper, Bloemer & Driessen (2010) explained similarity
confusion arises based on these factor that appears (e.g. logo, Symbols, Brand Meaning, labeling,
and Trade Mark). Later Matzelr et al. (2007) explained that such varieties of options are because
of mass-customization. And these options strongly support and originate the legal and ethical
issues (Balabanis & Craven, 2010).
However, similarity confusion may alter consumer decision to postponement because they are
going to purchase an unplanned product and did not intentionally aimed to purchase, if
alternatives are absolutely same, and this happens in low involvements with productsthat also
shuffles the purchase and consumption culture (Holt, 2002; Mitchell and Papavassiliou 1999).
And Leek & Chanaswatkit, (2006) have also found that similar brands and technological
advancements lead consumers loyalty and choice behavior to postponement. Therefore, a
consumer fell in trap heuristically and purchases low priced & quality product as a substitute that
ultimately deceives (Walsh, Thurau & Mitchell, 2007). While Drummond & Rule, (2007) have
also supported these findings and explained that such confusion shuffles the gravity of market
success and improvements as consumers postpone their purchase decisions. Therefore, Derosia,
3
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

Lee & Christensen (2011) comprehensively explained that as brand extension will increase
consumer confusion will also increase leading to purchase delays. So this steers to propose that:
H1: There is significant relationship of similarity confusion with decision postponement.

Overload Confusion
Information overload is availability of more information to consumer than his need, which
creates negative smack on consumer cognitive ability (Paulo, 1999). However, Walsh et al,
(2007) has defined comprehensively overload confusion that A lack of understanding caused by
excessive information available in a mature environment, that is not understandable by
consumers in available time during purchase. However, consumers are found less satisfied,
spare confused and not so much confident because of information overload (Lee & Lee, 2004;
Lucian et al. 2007). Therefore, overload confusion arises due to bulk of information available as
unclear information and implied & material frameworks (Lucian & Farias, 2009).
So as the variety of information makes consumers agitated, consumers ultimately reshapes their
buying behaviors that have direct impact on purchasing choices, word of mouth and satisfaction
(Walsh, Thurau & Mitchell, 2007). So in information overload relevancy is required but
technological advancements have played a massive role that has made information and data more
complex in nature, ultimately to postpone. (Wood, Patterson & Roth, 2002). Therefore, Angeli,
Valanides & Bonk (2003) have found less supported reasoning among students in her study
because of communication inference. But Chen, Pedersen & Murphy, (2011) resulted in their
study that all students are not affected by information overload because some students are
cognitively different and prior learned to manage such overload. But Murray & Thomson, (2011)
resulted in their study that senior citizens are found more confused because of overload as
compare to young. Though, similar consequences are of information overload to postponement
by both roots. Moreover, Cremer, (2007) found postponement in his study in the context of line
extension because of overload. Therefore, more information creates more errors and leads to
reduction in conscious awareness that influences not to have a rationale purchase decision but
mutually coordinates to have a confused decision or postpone the decision (Tunney, 2002; Walsh
& Mitchell, 2008). So in the light of above discussion it proposes that,
H2: There is significant relationship of overload confusion with decision postponement.
Ambiguity Confusion
Today when consumer enters in the market where the high involvement of complex
technologically innovated brands/products exists, they face various kinds of uncertain,
misleading and ambiguous information. So this dimension of consumer confusion is, the
4
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

consumer tolerance for processing unclear, misleading or ambiguous product related information
or advertisement (Walsh et al., 2007). As defined by Kapferer, (1995) consumers fathom
uncertainty, when they perceives illness from informational lack of clarity and inappropriateness
and such ambiguity confusion proves consumers to find it difficult legally also. And it affects to
interpreted and to understand product/brand based on conflicting information and pricing
strategies (Schweizer,Kotouc, & Wagner 2006; Walsh et al., 2007). Just because it is
comparative approach used by consumers and researchers that how consumers co-opt fresh
product into known product attributes (Uekermann et al., 2009). And it is matter of choice in
consumer hands (Rajgopal and Burnkrant, 2005). Hence, ambiguity as double edge is found most
supportive in the context of strategic plannings (Abdallah and Langley, 2014).
Therefore, when consumers comprehend the comparison between brands/products and they
professionalize ambiguity confusion, including income level it could cause decision
postponement (Lafgren, Lindquist & Sims, 1997). As Taylor, (2000) explained that ambiguity is
caused by behavioral formation and causes uncertainty that pinches the decision process and
reasoning from normal course purchase execution. Therefore, individual prefers the lower level
of ambiguity for decisions where chance of losses is found including punishment (Loughran et
al., 2011). Moreover consumers are at less advantage of experience, skills and information as
compared to brokers that also shuffles their cognition to ambiguity (Woodwards and
Econometrics, 2003). Hence, such ambiguity pinches the marginal preferences and
collaborations and it shuffles the partial advantage i.e. monetary and non monetary (Mauro and
Castro, 2011). Therefore, literature states the following hypothesis that
H3: There is significant impact of consumer confusion with decision postponement.
Moderating role of Perceived Risk
The most important erect faced by consumers during purchase of brands or products are
Perceived Risk, while perceived risk is consumers judgment to all embryonic counterfeits
(Conchar et al., 2004). In other words, perceived risk is the construct of mental insecurity in the
mind of end-users that forces to search and show marginal willingness to purchase and consume
the rival brands. So scholars are largely agreed to the impact of perceived risk on consumers
cognitive and purchase decisions (e.g., Mitchell, 1998; Campbell and Goodstein, 2001; Pereiz
and Garcia, 2012).
Therefore, Mitchell, (1998) designed his study to work on conceptualization of perceived risk
models and started by identifying the relationship of perceived risk with consumer involvement
and trust. Meanwhile, Campbell & Goodstien, (2001) investigated perceived risk with product
involvement and found significant nature of outcomes and proposed perceived risk as moderator
for paramount factors. Then later Laroche, Bergeron & Goutaland, (2003) investigated product
intangibility with the context of perceived risk and accounted highly correlated results that as
5
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

much the intangibility will increase the level of perceived risk will automatically increase.
Moreover, Martin & Camarero, (2008) found similar findings in the context of web site
consumers that consumers perceives more risk and also asses the reputation, word of mouth and
service quality of that web site. Similarly Periez & Garcia, (2012) have found similar results in
their study and argued perceived risk as moderator on the determinants of online loyalty because
it intends to influence the consumer satisfaction and their purchase hell-bent. Meanwhile, Zheng
et al. (2012) have founded homogeneous results of perceived risk relation in the domain of e.
shopping consumers with some marginal heterogeneous results like Chinese culture to purchase
intentions and shopping environment. While, Chen & Chang, (2013) have found similar results
but with a quite different ink by using perceived risk as mediator, found positively correlated
with green wash but negatively correlated with green trust of consumers. So priorly Koklic,
(2009) have argued that consumer mostly postpone their decision because of unfamiliarity with
such products and their purchase consequences than has a potential chance to negative outcomes
in shape of less satisfaction or lose of money. Therefore, such argument was supported by Periez
& Garcia, (2012) that consumers with high involvement of perceived risk will postpone the
decision and they feel confused but in the context of consumer low involvement will tend to
make decision quickly even in confused situation because of similarity, overload and ambiguity
confusion proneness. Hence, literature suggest to hypothesize that,
H4: There is moderating relation of Perceived risk between similarity confusion and decision
postponement.
H5: There is moderating relation of Perceived risk between overload confusion and decision
postponement.
H6: There is moderating relation of Perceived risk between ambiguity confusion and decision
postponement.
Moderating role of Personal Income
A certain portion of value, material custody or currency that is earned through various sources in
society and social groups is known as income level (Ordabayeva and Chandon, 2011). And such
income level is strongly con integrated with sources of revenue generation but because of
inconsistency in wages of workers causes decline in income and it fumbles to income inequality
(Piketty, 2003). But some times during formation of analogues society level of incomes changes
and mostly declines that ultimately changes the consumption patterns that gives birth to
consumption inequality (Cai, Chen and Zhou, 2010). And as priory investigated, such income
inequality leads consumers to reshape their decisions regarding consumption on the bases of
monthly price movements and such phenomena is found strongly co integrated in retail business
(Fox, Montgomery and Lodish, 2004; Gou, Mroz & Popkin 2000). Hence, it affects the peoples
basic needs to live as their income level curve moves to decline that ultimately changes the
6
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

shopping habits of their selves and such consumers then rely on financial support (Mofitt and
Scholz, 2010). But due to certain attitudinal factors study resulted that low-income individuals
spends more as compare to high-income individuals (Dynan, Skinner and Zeldes, 2004).
Sometimes decision postponement is found co integrated in the context of retired individuals
that shows their changing decisions before and after retirement to consumption habits and makes
them more cautious (Smith, 2003; Ostergaard, Sorensen & Yosha, 2004). And their decisions
are based on the upper and lower limits of prices including their available funds flow (Ofir,
2004). Oppositely, consumers with a uniform and increasing stream of stream of income always
moves with same consumption patterns and maintains their self esteem by enhancing their social
status (Becker, Murphy and Werning, 2005; Mu, 2006). But price of the brand or product
always matter and each consumer uses mental accounting for value and price comparison before
shopping (Brandt and Holz, 2006). Therefore, earning patterns and individuals wealth has sound
able concern regarding consumer shopping and shopping life that has dual effect either in shape
of heavy earnings or heterogeneous earnings (Sabel, Dorling and Hiscock, 2007). Hence,
literature states the hypothesis that,
H7: There is moderating relationship between similarity confusion and decision postponement.
H8: There is moderating relationship between overload confusion and decision postponement.
H9: There is moderating relationship between ambiguity confusion and decision postponement.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Perceived Risk

Income Level

Similarity Confusion

Decision
Postponement

Overload Confusion

Ambiguity Confusion

7
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

As conceptual frame work states that three independent variables (Similarity confusion,
Overload Confusion & Ambiguity Confusion) are used, two moderators (Perceived Risk &
Personal Income) and one dependent variable is used as decision postponement. So this model
has generated 09 hypotheses collectively.
METHODOLOGY
Instrumentation
The questionnaires are adopted from the papers of (Alarabi & Gronblad, 2012, Walsh; Thurau &
Mitchell, 2010, Laroche; Begeron & Goutaland, 2003). While three items scale of consumer
confusion, overload confusion and perceived risk, 5 items scale of ambiguity confusion and 04
items scale of decision postponement were adopted. All the items were measured by five point
likert scale with 01 representing strongly agree and 05 representing strongly disagree.
Population & Sample
The population of the research was consumers of using mobile phones. Sample consisted of
consumers working in various fields of life. And the data is only collected from the individuals
of mobile phone market, who are active consumers of such market. Initially, 300 questionnaires
were distributed and 261 were received back. Out of these 11 questionnaires were incomplete
and were eliminated. So 250 questionnaires were used in our study that represented response rate
of 83%. For confidentiality concern, respondents were not asked to report their name anywhere
on questionnaire. In order it is kept un sourced to get honest and reliable information.
Sample Characteristics
The sample constitutes 70.6% males and 20.4% females. The ratio of females in the sample
is low because of the cultural norms of the country. In Pakistani culture, willingness of
females to fill and respond to questionnaire is not considered a good thing. And in qualification
term, 4.4% respondents dominated the degree of Doctorate, 12.6% Master of philosophy, 10.3
degree of master, 45.8% Graduates, Intermediate 18.3% and 03.8% Matriculations. Moreover,
our sample belongs to the various groups of ages. 71% were between 18-25 years, 18.7%
belongs to 26-33 years age, 3.1% from age of 34-45 years and 0.8% from the age of >50 years.
Control Variables
After performing descriptive analyses, in this study all demographic variables i.e. gender, age,
qualification, social status and qualification are controlled. And as explained below no one
sociodemographic variable is found significant at any level. And it is because Pakistan is
underdeveloped country and still is in developing stage (Huang, & Van De Vliert, 2003).
Reliability Analyses
8
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

All measures are strongly correlated with each other excluding similarity confusion and overload
confusion. Because their measurement scale has limited strength. So the reliability of all
measures is analyzed through Chronbachs alpha and all items are acceptable.
Number of Items
03
SC = Similarity Confusion

Chronbachs Alpha
0.582

Number of Items
03
OC = Overload Confusion

Chronbachs Alpha
0.543

Number of Items
Chronbachs Alpha
05
0.609
OC = Overload Confusion
Number of Items
03
PR = Perceived Risk

Chronbachs Alpha
0.812

Number of Items
04

Chronbachs Alpha
0.753

Hence, total alpha reliability is 0.582 that is not much satisfactory due to scale. Because of only
three items were available to adopt to measure the similarity confusion. And no one item is
deleted because of minimal limitation of the scale.
RESULTS
Table. 01
Data Normality
Variable

Skewness

Kurtosis

Similarity Confusion

250

0.143

-1.405

Overload Confusion

250

0.081

-1.399

Ambiguity Confusion

250

-0.075

-1.311

9
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

The basic objective of any data analyses is to explore and interpreted the data location and
variability of data. So data normality is just the possibility that the basic variables are normally
distributed. Data normality is checked by Skewness and Kurtosis. Term Skewness referred as
that is distorted to one side. And Kurtosis argues that how flat a measurement is of the extent to
which observation cluster around a base point (Pearson, 1895).
Data have shown the required statistics to examine the Kurtosis and Skewness of the Data. The
required range for Kurtosis are -2 and +2, below and above the data needs to be corrected before
applying tests where as Skewness value more than twice its standard error is taken to indicate a
departure from symmetry. The Kurtosis value was at the range of -1.408 to - 0.850.
Table.02
Descriptive Statistics
Variable
Similarity Confusion
Overload Confusion
Ambiguity Confusion
Perceived Risk
Decision Postponement

Mean
2.28
2.45
2.47
2.46
2.23

Standard Deviation
1.03
0.96
1.19
1.05
0.90

Descriptive statistics were carried out to check the response. The mean value of the similarity
confusion was 2.28, overload confusion was 2.45 and ambiguity confusion was 2.47. This is
measured on the bases of consumer confusion dimensions in the study with 05 point liker scale
value match with 02=Agree. And all variables are measured on 05 point likert scale.
Table.03
Correlation Analyses

Variable

1.Similarity Confusion

2.Overload Confusion

.395**

3.Ambiguity Confusion

.427

**

.501**

4.Perceived Risk

.306**

.402**

.415**

5.Decision Postponement
.331**
.450**
*. Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (02-tailed)
**. Correlation is significant at 0.01 levels (02-tailed)

.456**

.484**

10
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

The table shows correlation among similarity confusion, overload confusion, ambiguity
confusion perceived risk and decision postponement. Correlation analyses revealed that
similarity confusion has significant positive relationship with overload confusion (0.0395**,
p<0.01) and overload confusion is also positively correlated with ambiguity confusion (0.427**,
p<0.01). While ambiguity confusion has positive correlation with perceived risk (0.415**,
p<0.01) and perceived risk has positive correlation with (0.306**, p<0.01) and with (0.402**,
p<0.01) and also with decision postponement (0.484**, p, 0.01). Therefore, decision
postponement is also positively correlated with similarity confusion (0.331**, p<0.01), overload
confusion (0.450**, p, 0.01) and ambiguity confusion (0.456**, p<0.01).

Table. 04
Results of Moderated Regression
Analyses for Perceived Risk

Predictor
Step 1
Control variables
Step 2

DP
R2

R2

.008

SC

.068

OC

.149**

AC

.189**

PR

.254***

.355

.347

.362

.008

Step 3
.024

SC*PR

.041

OC*PR

.011

AC*PR

11
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

Note: - Control variables: Gender, Age, Qualification, Social status, Occupation.


SC= Similarity Confusion, OC= Overload Confusion, AC= Ambiguity Confusion,
PR= Perceived Risk, DP= Decision Postponement
***p< 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05
The moderated regression analysis is used to check the role of perceived risk between
consumer confusion and decision postponement. In first control variables were entered secondly
all three independent variables were entered to predict decision postponement. In third step, three
interaction terms were entered. It is observed that similarity confusion (beta 0.68) is found
insignificant, overload confusion (beta 0.149** p<0.01), ambiguity confusion (beta 0.189**
p<0.01) and perceived risk (beta 0.254***, p<0.001) are significantly related with decision
postponement. Whereas three interaction terms were generated, it was observed that similarity
confusion and perceived risk (beta 0.024) overload confusion and perceived risk (beta 0.041) and
ambiguity confusion perceived risk (beta 0.011) has insignificant interaction term with outcome
variables.
Table. 05
Results of Moderated Regression
Analyses for Personal Income

Predictor
Step 1
Control variables
Step 2

DP
R2

R2

.008

SC

.067

OC

.149**

AC

.189**

PR

.254***

PI

.007

.355

.347

.377

.023

Step 3
-.005

SCPI

-.021

OCPI
12

IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

.108**

ACPI

Note: - Control variables: Gender, Age, Qualification, Social status, Occupation.


SC= Similarity Confusion, OC= Overload Confusion, AC= Ambiguity Confusion,
PR= Perceived Risk, DP= Decision Postponement, PI= Personal Income
***p< 0.001, **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05
The personal income moderated regression analyses is conducted between consumer
confusion and decision postponement. In first control variables were entered secondly all three
independent variables were entered to predict decision postponement. In third step, three
interaction terms were entered. It is observed that similarity confusion (beta 0.67) is found
insignificant, but overload confusion (beta 0.149** p<0.01) is significantly found, ambiguity
confusion (beta 0.189** p<0.01) is significant but perceived risk (beta 0.254) in significantly
related with decision postponement. Moreover, personal income is (beta 0.007) is also found
insignificant. Whereas three interaction terms were generated, it was observed that similarity
confusion and personal income (beta -0.05, p<0.0), overload confusion and personal income
(beta -0.021, p<0.0) are found in significant and ambiguity confusion & personal income (beta
0.108**, p<0.01) has significant interaction term with outcome variables.
Results Summary
To summarize our results in regression table (04) Hypothesis 01 is rejected that similarity has not
significant impact on the decision postponement. While hypothesis 02 & 03 are accepted that
overload confusion and ambiguity confusion has positive significant impact on decision
postponement. But hypothesis 04, 05 & 06 (Moderator hypothesis) is rejected because
interaction term has no significant results as shown in the results. In regression table (05)
hypothesis 01 is rejected that similarity confusion has no significant impact on consumer
confusion. While hypothesis 02 & 03are accepted. But personal income (moderator) hypothesis
04 & 05 are rejected that similarity confusion and overload confusion has no significant impact
on personal income. But hypothesis 06 is accepted that ambiguity confusion has positive
significant influence with personal income.
DISCUSSION
We observed that our 05 hypothesis are accepted out of 09 hypotheses. Similarity confusion
hypothesis is rejected as mentioned above. Whereas hypothesis of overload confusion and
ambiguity confusion are accepted. But when we studied these specifically in cultural context
then our results came opposite. Then as moderational analyses it led new contribution to this
study that all three hypotheses (04, 05 & 06) are rejected. Hence, perceived risk has no
moderating effect between consumer confusion dimensions and decision postponement because
consumers of Pakistan in mobile phone are more fashion oriented, early adopters and rationally
13
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

well aware about markets and mobile phone brands. Moreover, in Pakistan mostly mobile phone
consumers are young and students and they are monetarily supported by parents. Therefore, such
young consumers are not risk averse. Hence, perceived risk has no moderational influence.
But when results of consumer confusion dimensions are observed with personal income as
moderator, the results were more surprising. Because hypothesis 01 of similarity confusion is
also rejected here and it is due the reason that most consumers of mobile phone markets in
Pakistan are well aware of all brands. It is because of consumer attachment with brands that
pinches him to explore more and more about brands. Moreover, in Pakistan informational,
promotional and advertising activities are sounder that reduces consumer brand identification
agitation. But overload and ambiguity confusion hypothesis are accepted because where there is
found rich marketing environment and mature markets information overload increase than
normal level that cause overload and ambiguity confusion. Hence, same is the case in Pakistani
context, consumers postpones their purchases because of these. While hypothesis 04 & 05 are
rejected with personal income that shows that similarity confusion and overload confusion has
no significant relationship with personal income. It is because in Pakistan consumers have too
certain demands and no decision are postponed due to similarity confusion as data sets
represented. But oppositely hypothesis 06 is accepted that ambiguity confusion has significant
impact with personal income represents that up to theory and real phenomena that where ever
ambiguity of brands exists consumers as humans also behaves risk averse and to secure their
money refuses to transact. Because money is more vital item no one wants to lose.
As the main aim of the research was to measure the influence of consumer confusion dimensions
on decision postponement with moderation impact of perceived risk and personal income. The
results are shown above fully supporting hypothesis 02 & 03 that overload confusion and
ambiguity has significant positive impact decision postponement. Perceived risk as moderated
fully rejected and personal income hypothesis 06 is only accepted that ambiguity confusion has
significant positive impact on income level. Hence, it shows that in this study overload confusion
and ambiguity confusion has significant positive influence on decision postponement.
Practical Implications
The current study findings have various practical implications for marketers practices, policy
executers and research. And consumer confusion absence has shown it before. Therefore, it has
important for consequences of consumer confusions and decision postponement intensity
reduction of mobile phone brands in Pakistan. And specifically policies can be made regarding
students consumer behavior to exclude the rising unsystematic market risk that can shuffle brand
positioning.
Conclusion
14
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

In accordance with results, in Pakistan consumers confusion exists due to overload and
ambiguity about any brand of mobile phones. And due to collectivist social culture source of
income of various consumers is autocratic and are served by their parents. So consumers enjoy
the leisure of risk and adopt new brands for self satisfaction and maintained status quo.
Therefore, perceived risk as moderator is found insignificant in results. While, in Pakistani
mobile phone market most of the market share is occupied by young individuals and their
income is originated from family groups. Therefore, in this moderational analyses such
consumers felt confused when they are ambiguous about any brand. But mostly, such consumers
are well aware due to cheep and reliable source of information availability. Therefore, role of
sales representative regarding informational transmission is reduced.
Future research directions
The present study is done only in Pakistani context and only on mobile phone market. The future
research can be conducted on various products including automobiles, detergents, home
appliances and laptops markets. And mostly brands in Pakistan are imported that are made at any
one location assembled in other and are exported here. So country origin has strong influence
leading to consumer confusion, can be used for future research. Moreover, family life style,
purchasing patterns and their subculture can show novel results regarding consumer confusion.

REFRENCES
Abdallah, C. & Langley, A. (2014). The Double Edge of Ambiguity in Strategic Planning.
Journal of Management Studies, 51, 02.
Angeli, C., Valanedis. N., & Bonk, J. C. (2003). Communication in a Web based Conferring
System: The Quality of Computer Mediated Interactions. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 34(01).
Aycan, et al. (2000). Impact of Culture on Human Resource Management Practice: A 10Countries Comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(01), 192221.
Balabanis, G. & Craven, S. (2010). Consumer Confusion from Own Brands Lookalikes: An
exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 229-313.
Becker, S. G., Murphy, M. K., & Werning, I. (2005). The Equilibrium Distribution of Income
and Market of Status. Journal of Political Economy, 113, (02), 282-310.
Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent Management Strategies of Employee Engagement in Indian IETS
Employees: Key to Retention. Journal of Employee Relation, 29, 06.
15
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

Brandt, L. & Holz, A. C. (2006). Spatial Price Differences in China: Estimates and Implications.
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 55, (01), 43-86.
Campbell, C. M. & Goodstein C. R. (2001). The moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on
Consumer Evaluations of Products Incongruity: Preferences for the Norm. Journal of
Consumer Research, 28, (03), 439-449.
Cai, H., Chen, Y., & Zhou, L. (2010). Income and Consumption Inequality in Urban China.
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58, (03), 385-413.
Chen, Y. S. & Chang, C. H. (2013), Green wash and Green trust: The Mediation Effect of Green
Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 114,
489-500.
Conchar et al. (2004). An integrated Frame work for the Conceptualization of Consumers
Perceived Risk Processing. Journal of Academy of Marketing Sciences, 32, No. 4
Page 418-436.
Chen, Y. C., Pedersen, S., & Murphy, L. K. (2011). The influence of Perceived Information
Overload on Student Participation and Knowledge Construction in Computermediated Communication. Journal of Inter Sciences, 40, 325-349.
Cremer, C. (2007). Consumer Confusion in the Context of Line Extension. Universitiet
Maastrich, Master Thesis.
Devasenathipathi, T., & Saravanan, s. (2013). A Study on Consumer Confusion among Urban,
Semi-Urban and Rural Consumers with Special Reference to Laptop Market A Post
Purchase Recall Survey. Abhinave National Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in
Commerce & Management, 2(3), ISSN 2277-1166.
Dany, P. (2007). Consumer Confusion and Confusion Reduction Strategies: A Case of
Cambodian Mobile Phone Market. Consumer Confusion in the Context of Line
Extensions. Master-Thesis.
Drummond, G. & Rule, G. (2007). Consumer Confusion in UK Wine Industry. Journal of Wine
Research, 16 (01) 55-64.
Derosia, E. D., Lee. R. T., & Christensen, L. G. (2011). Sophisticated but Confused: The Impact
of Brand Extension and Motivation on Source Confusion. Journal of Psychology &
Marketing, 28(05, 457-478.
Dynan, E. K., Siknner, J., & Zeldes, P. S. (2004). Do the Rich Save More? Journal of Political
Economy, 112. (02), 397-444.

16
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

Fox, J. E., Montgomery, L. A., & Lodish, M. L. (2004). Consumer Shopping and Spending
Across Retail Market. The Journal of Business, 77, (52), S25-S60.
Gou, X., Mroz, A. T., & Popkin, M. B.(2000). Structural Change in the Impact of Income on
Food Consumption in China, 1989-1993. Economic Development and Cultural
Change, 48, (04), 737-760.
Huang, X., & Van De Vliert, E. (2003). Where intrinsic job satisfaction fails to work: National
moderators of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,159179.
Hills, T. T., Noguchi, T. Gibbert, M. (2013).Information Overload and Search Amplified Risk?
Set Size and Order Effect on Decisions from Experience. Psychon Bull Rev. 20,
1023-

Holt, B. D. (2002). Why do brands Cause Trouble? A Dilectical Theory of Consumer Culture
and Branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (01), 70-90.
1031.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky. (1979). Prospect Theory: Decision making under Risk. Econometrica
(pre-1986); Mar 1979; 47, 2.
Kasper, H., Bloemer, J. & Driessen, H.P. (2010). Coping with Confusion: The Case of the
Dautch Mobile Phone Market. Journal of Managing Servicing Quality, 20 (02),140160
Kapferer, N. J. (1995).Brand Confusion: Empirical Study of Legal Concept. Journal of
Marketing & Psychology, 12(06),551-586.
Koklic, K. M. (2009). The Strategic Household Purchase: Consumer House Buying Behavior.
Managing Globel Transition: International Research Journal, 07, (01), 75-96.
Laroche, M., Begeron, J., & Goutaland, C. (2003). How Intangibility Effects Perceived Risk:
The Moderating Role of Knowledge and Involvement. Journal of Service Marketing,
17, (02), 122-140.
Lefgren, L., Lindquist, J. M., & Sims, D. (2012). Rich Dad, Smart Dad: Decomposing the
Intergenrational Transmision of Income. Journal of Political Economy, 120 (02),
286-303.
Leek, S. & Chansawaskit, S. (2006). Consumer Confusion in Thai Mobile Phone Market.
Journal of Consumer Behavior, 05, 518-532.
17
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

Lee, K. B. & Lee, N. W. (2004). The Effect of Information Overload on Consumer Choice
Quality in an On-Line Environment. Journal of Psychology & Marketing, (21)3,159183
Lucian, R. & Farias, A. (2009). Effect of information overload in Brazilian E. Consumers.
American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 1 (1) 21-26, 2009.
Lucian et al. (2007). Information Overload in Ecommerce. International Federation for
Information Processing, 251,423-430.
Loughran et al. (2011). On Ambiguity in Perception of Risk: Implications for Criminal Decisions
Making and Deterrence. Journal of Criminology, 49 (04).
Martin, S. S. & Camarero, C. (2008). How Percieved Risk Effects Online Buying. Online
Information Review, 33, (04), 629-654.
Matzler et al., (2007). Spoiled for choice: Consumer Confusion in
Customization. Journal of Innovative Marketing, 03, (03).

Internet based Mass

Matzler, K. & Waiguny, M. (2005). Consequences of Consumer Confusion in Online Hotel


Booking. Journal of Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, 306317.
Mauro, D. C. & Castro, F. M. (2011). Kindness, Confusion, Or . . . Ambiguity? Journal of
Experimental Econometrics, 14, 611-633.
Memi, D. (2012). Information Overload and Virtual Institutions. AI & Soc, 29, 75-83.
Mitchell, V.W., & Papavassiliou, V. (1999). Marketing Causes and Implications of Consumer
Confusion. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 319-339.
Mitchell, W. V. (1998). Consumer Perceived Risk Conceptualization & Models. European
Journal of Marketing, 33, (01), 163-195.
Moffitt, R. & Scholz, K. J. (2010). Trends in the Level and Distribution of Income Support.
Journal of Tax Policy and Economy, 24, (01), 111-152.
Murray, J. & Thomson, E. M. (2011). Age related Differences on Cognitive Overload in an
Audio Visual Memory. European Journal of Psychological Education, 26, 129-141.
Mu, R. (2006). Income Shocks, Wealth, Consumption and Human Capital: Evidence from
Russia. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54 (04), 857-892.

18
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

Ofir, C. (2004). Reexamining Latitude of Price Acceptability and Price Thresholds: Predicting
Basic Consumer Reaction to Price. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, (04), 612621.
Oradabayeva, N. & Chandon, P. (2011). Getting Ahead of the Joneses: When Equality Increases
Conspicuous Consumption among Bottom Tier Consumers. Journal of Consumer
Research, 38, (01), 27-41.
Ostergaard, C., Sorensen, E. B., Yosha, O. (2004). Consumption and Aggregate Constraints:
Evidence From US. States and Canadian Provinces. Journal of Political Economy,
110 (03), 634-645.
Piketty, T. (2003). Income Inequality in France, 19901-1998. Journal of Political Economy, 111,
(05), 1004-1042.
Pearson, K. (1895). Contribution to the mathematical theory of evaluation, II: Skew variation in
homogenous material. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
186, 343-414.
Perez, C., & Garcia, S. (2012) Satisfaction and Loyalty to a Website: The Moderating Effect of
Perceived Risk. Esicmarket, 141, pp. 183-207.
Paulo, H. F. (1999). Information Overload in Computer-Mediated Communication and Educated:
In the Really too much Information? Implication for Distance Education. Journal of
T. space Library.
Rajgopal, P. & Burnkrant, E. R. (2005). Consumer Categorization and Evaluation of Ambiguous
Products. Advances in Consumer Research, 32.
Sabel, E. C., Dorling, D., & Hiscock, R. (2007). Sources of Income, Wealth and Length of Life:
An Individual Level Study of Mortality. Critical Public Health, 17 (04), 293-310.
Shweizer, M., Kotouc, J. A., & Wagner, T. (2006). Scale Development for Consumer Confusion.
Advances in Consumer Research, 33.
Smith, P. J. (2003). Trends and Projections in Income Replacement during Retirement. Journal
of Labor Economics, 21, (04), 755-781.
Taylor, K.A. (2000). Explaining Individual and Task Differences in Consumer Attitudes and
Ambiguity. Marketing Letters, 11:2 (2000), 117-127.
Tunney, J. (2002).The Neglected Tension Between Disclosure of Consumer of Information in
Consumer and Competition Law Context. Journal of Consumer Policy, 25, 329-343.
19
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

Uekermann er al. (2009). The Influence of Stimulus Ambiguity on Category and Attitude
Formation. Review of Managerial Sciences, 04, 33-52.
Wang, Q. & Shukla, P. (2013). Linking sources of Consumer Confusion to Decision Satisfaction:
The role of Choice Goals. Journal of Psychology and Marketing, 30(04), 295-304.
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.W. Kilian, T. & Miller, L. (2009). Measuring Consumer Vulnerability to
Perceived Product Similarity problems and its Consequences. Journal of Marketing
Management, 00, No. 00, 1-17.
Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Mitchell, V. W. (2007). Consumer Confusion Proneness: Scale
Development, Validation, and Application. Journal of Marketing Management, 22
(forthcoming).
Walsh, G., Thurau, H.T. & Mitchell, M.V. (2010). Consumer Confusion Proneness: Scale
Development, Validation and Application. Journal of Marketing Management, 23,
(07-08), 697-721
Walsh, G. & Mitchell, W. V. (2008). The effect of Consumer Confusion Proneness on Word of
Mouth, Trust and Customer Satisfaction. Eupeon Journal of Marketing, 44(06), 838859.
Woods, D. D., Paterson, S. E. & Roth, M. E. (2002). Can We ever Escape from Data Overload?
A Cognitive System Diagnosis. Journal of Cognition, Technology & Work, 04, 22-36.
Woodwards, E. S. & Econometrics, H. S. (2003). Consumer Confusion In Mortgage Market.
Sand hill Econometric Research Paper.
Zheng, et al., (2012). Chinese Consumer Perceived Risk and Risk Relievers in E-Shopping for
Clothing. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(3).

20
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com

International journal of Techno-Management Research,Vol. 02,Issue 03,December 2014 ISSN: 2321-3744

21
IJTMR
www.ijtmr.com