INTRODUCTION:

After 1990’s, LPG policy enactment, the high rate of industrialization, growth of service sector and better employment opportunities have shaped the lifestyle of Indians, increased spending on modern equipments. Introduction of credit culture, buy today and pay tomorrow, deep western influence on urban middle and upper class has been resulting the yesterday’s luxuries have become today’s necessities. Subsequently tremendous increase in purchase of modern gadgets, consumer electronic goods and etc. Today Indian consumers giving much attention on available products, price, place, promotion, physical evidence and also they spent much time on information search brings drastic changes in their purchase process. Similarly, the brand which identifies support family values are becoming more popular and family, friends, peers and sales peoples suggestion were more considered by them ever before. Further, putting efforts on extensive information search to decide best choice among many alternatives which in turn resulting purchase related bewilderment and frustration.

On the other side, as a result of the increasing literacy in the country, satellite television, continuous innovation, intensive competition , marketers customized services have led to huge increase in the amount of products available in one category, great amount of information, tyranny of choices, Furthermore, in order to communicate with ultimate users, most of the companies attempting to promote their product and services through large array of commercial channels, availing their products on vertical and horizontal intermediaries and etc. Ultimately, these situation also impacting the Indian consumer’s decisions and purchase process as more complex. This phenomenon of increasing choice, abundant information, ambiguous messages and technical complexity may chances to affect consumer’s pre and post purchase decision making and business. Therefore, need of the hour is to address consumers purchase related confusion.

CONCEPT OF CONSUMER CONFUSION AND REDUCTION STRATEGIES

According to Mitchell and Papavassiliou "Confusion is a state of mind which affects information processing and decision making. The consumer may therefore be aware or unaware of confusion." Mitchell and Papavassiliou (1997 and 1999) in their two article addressed that choice embarrassment, a hybrid marketing communications, lessening inter-brand differentiation, increasing imitated and look-alike products, and intricacy of information were confusion factors. Further, Mitchell and Papavassiliou (1999), Mitchell et al. (2005) defined three types of confusion namely 1. "Similarity confusion- It can be caused by brand similarity when there is imitation or counterfeiting in product advertisement or commercial messages”, 2. “Overload confusion- It may be the result of an information and variety rich environment", and 3. “Ambiguity confusion may occur Customers receive new or false information that is contradictory or does not with present knowledge". Confused consumers knowingly or unknowingly applying some self –driven way to reduce cognitive unclarity and these strategies will vary from individual to individual, differ depending on the source of the confusion as well as the specific purchase situation. Individual prior purchase experience, competency of information processing, learning involvement will guarantee the effective confusion-reduction strategies in which turns lesser the purchase dissonance. Mitchell and Papavassiliou (1999) found that if consumers are get confused, they apply confusion reduction strategies.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Rafiq and Collins (1996) pointed some indication that males might be more likely to get confused by the similarity of packaging in a supermarket context because men generally having less experience in grocer purchase.(Shavitt et al., 1998) discovered generally male consumers show a more favorable attitude toward ads than female consumers which may result information overload. Turnbull et al., (2000) in mobile phone industry study report that a female was more prone to confusion than males. Schweizer (2004) found that gender, are suited to differentiate orientated consumers from confused consumers. Walsh and Mitchell (2005) found that more females were highly vulnerable to seeing products as similar and unable to distinguish it while more males were moderately vulnerable to perceive product similarity. Yoh and Edd (2005) points that both young female and male students perceived information burden and reduce confusion they consulted peers. Leek and Chansawatkit (2006) state that women are more likely than men to confuse to select correct mobile handset. Bertha Jacobs et al., (2007) claims that females apparel buyers experience four uncertainty confusion such as physical risk , functional risk, financial risk and time risk. Kuhl and Schulz (2007) found that both male and females experience same level of confusion. Merwe et al., (2008) in his study reterate that sales assistant definitely influence the consumer purchase decision. The sales assistant’s approach, behavior, characteristics, and appearance influence the female consumer’s perceptions of the store and thereby influence purchasing decisions and evoked the negative emotions. Yeşilada, and Kavas(2008) Cyprus ( ) stated that female consumers suffering from information overload due to vast amount of alternatives and the commercial information which in effect turns shopping an exhaustive activity characterized as Confused by Over Choice shoppers and decision makers. Nuntasaree Sukato (2008) found that male consumers show positive attitude towards sales peoples information and agreed that sales people information not misleading. Kawee Boonlertvanich (2009) found no significant relationship between gender and overchoice confusion shopping style. Sengupta and Noopur Agrawal (2009) found that various categories of females experienced significant level of brand confusion.

Mitchell and Papavassiliou (2005) state that if consumers are get confused, they apply confusion reduction strategies. For example, the consumer confusion reduction strategies are 1. Do nothing or avoidance (Thomas Rudolph, 2004, (Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1997; Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999; Drummond 2004, Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 2005; KurtMatzler, 2005), 2. Postpone or abandon the purchase 3. Clarify the buying goals (Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999; Drummond 2004), 4. Seek additional information (Drummond, 2004; Leek and Chansawatkit, 2006; Leek and Kun, 2006), 5. Narrow down the set of alternatives (Drummond, 2004; Jacoby, 1977; Mitchell et al., 2005; Iyengar and Lepper, 2000; Turnbull et al., 2000), 6. Share /delegate the purchase (Leek and Chansawatkit, 2006; Drummond, 2004). Recently Hans Kasper et al (2010) found that higher levels of consumer confusion lead to an amplified use of seven coping strategies: downsizing the consideration set; keeping status quo; reduced information search; search deferral; buying what others have bought; disengagement from decision; and decision delegation.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY:

Based on the above reviews of literatures, the following research objectives and hypothesis were framed

Research objectives and hypothesis: The objectives of the study are to determine the general aspect of confusion in the Indian laptop market. Particularly what are the purchases related confusions perceived by the students during laptop purchase. In order to reduce the confusion, is there any strategies adopted by them. And whether the various consumer confusion significantly differs between male and females students.

H1: There is no significant difference in over choice confusion between male and female consumers

H2: There is no significant different in overload confusion between male and female consumers

H3: There is no significant different in similarity confusion between male and female consumers

H4: There is no significant different in unclarity confusion between male and female consumers

Methodology: Non – probability convenience sampling was adopted and the 350 questionnaires were distributed among students who studying their undergraduate and post graduate in various colleges in Coimbatore city.

Questionnaires design: First part of the questionnaires contained on demographic and details of laptop they purchased, usage as well as competency of laptop handling at the time of purchase. Second part was related to the potential types of consumer confusion and confusion reduction strategies adopted by them and they can state in on five –point likert scale from strongly agree through to strongly disagree.

For pilot, the questionnaires were initially administered to convenience samples of 25 MBA students of PPG Institute of technology. The aim was to check that the issues were significant; the questions were clearer and easy to understand. Based on the result of pilot study, the layout of the question were changed. Later the questionnaire was administered to a sample of 350 students who purchased laptop two years before the survey commenced. A sample of 259 correctly filled questionnaires were considered for the analysis.

Table No 1

S. NO	Demographic details of the respondents		Frequency	%
1.	Gender	Male	200	77.2
1.	Gender	Female	59	22.8
2.	Age	18-21 years	221	85.3
2.	Age	22-25 years	38	14.3
3.	Areas of Living	Urban	50	19.3
		Semi-urban	168	64.9
		Rural	41	15.8
4.	Monthly Family Income	10,000 to 20000	18	6.9
		20001 to 30000	147	56.8
		30001 to 40000	77	29.7
		40001 to 50000	16	6.2
		50001 above	1	0.4
5.	Education	Undergraduate	212	81.9
5.	Education	Post graduate	47	18.1

RESULTS OF THE STUDY:

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENT:

The Table No.1 represents the details of respondent’s demography. Of the 259 samples, the majority of which consisted of male students which accounting 77.2% and 85.3 % age ranging 18 to 21 years. Most of the respondents were currently residing at semi urban and rural part of Coimbatore, followed by 19.3% urban and 15.8% of them residing in rural areas. Among five levels of monthly family income, majority of the (56.8%) respondents were fall in the category of Rs. 20001-30000, 29.7% of the samples were 30001-40000, followed by 6.9% and 6.7% of the subjects fall in the category of Rs.10000-20000 and Rs.40001-50000 respectively and a very meager responses are above Rs.50000. 81.9% of the students currently studying undergraduate and rest of the 47 students were studying post graduation in carious colleges in and around Coimbatore city.

STUDENT’S OPINION ABOUT LAPTOP PURCHASE DETAILS:

The Table No. 2 represents opinion about their Laptop aspects and purchase details .Of the 259 respondents, 83.8% (217) respondents purchased laptop within the one year of current research, 16.2% (42) respondents purchased between 1- 2 years before the survey commenced. The frequency of laptop brands used by the respondents is summarized as follows: 40.2% (104) Dell, 20.1%(52) Accer, (18.1%) 47 Lennova, (13.9%) 36 Sony, (7.0%) 45 HP, (0.7%) 2 other brands. The above set brands were purchased from various sources. Majority of the (41%) customers purchased laptop from Laptop showrooms, followed by 35.1% of the respondents purchased from their college referred distributors/marketers and a meager of the students bought from local trade fairs /computer exhibition. A question was asked among the samples to answer their laptop competency during the time of purchase: 36.7% (95) respondents rated their Laptop usage skill as moderator, 34% (88) of the respondents rated themselves as a beginners and rest 29.3% (76) respondents opined them as excellent competency on laptop handling. The above table shows that 40.5% (105) respondents report that the laptop usage were of 2-4 hours per day, 32.0% (83) respondents between 4-6 hours per day, 20.8%(54) respondents between 6-8 hours per day, followed by 4.6% (12) and 1.9% (5) respondents opined that they use the laptop for more than 8 hours and less than 2 hours per day respectively

Table NO -2

S. No	Laptop Usage details		No of respondents	% Respondents
1.	Time of purchase	Less than 1 years	217	83.8
1.	Time of purchase	1-2 years	42	16.2
2.	Usage skill	I am a beginner	88	34.0
		I am a moderate user	95	36.7
		I am an excellent user	76	29.3
3.	Average hours of using laptop per day	Less than 2 hours	12	4.6
		Between 2-4 hours	105	40.5
		Between 4-6 hours	83	32.0
		Between 6-8 Hours	54	20.8
		More than 8 hours	5	1.9
4.	Brand	Dell	104	40.2
		Accer	52	20.1
		Lenova	47	18.1
		HP	18	7.0
		Sony	36	13.9
		others	2	0.7
5.	Purchase source	Company owned showroom	106	41.0
		Computers and laptop distributors in my area	56	21.6
		Computer exhibition and trade fairs	6	2.3
		College /Institution/ referred marketers /distributor	91	35.1

LEVELS OF CONSUMER CONFUSION: The respondents of this study were asked to give opinion about level of over choice confusion experienced during the time laptop purchase. Students who found different types of confusion rated in 5 point liker scale varying from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). By median cutoff the respondents were categories into – low and high level of confusion. Over choice confusion: In Table No 3. 60.2% (156) of the respondents expressed higher level of over choice confusion while choosing the laptop and 39.8% (103) of the respondents opined that they experienced lower level of over choice confusion during the time of laptop purchase. Information Overload Confusion: 53.3%% (138) of the respondents expressed higher level of information overload confusion while choosing the laptop where as 46.7% 121) respondents were opined that they experienced lower level of information overload confusion during the laptop purchase decision. Similarity Confusion: 51% (132) respondents expressed high level of similarity confusion while choosing the laptop and 49% (127) respondents expressed that they experienced only lower level of similarity confusion during the laptop purchase. Unclarity Confusion: 51.7% (134) respondents expressed high level of unclarity confusion while choosing the Laptop and 48.3% (125) respondents claimed that they experienced low level of unclarity confusion during the laptop purchase decision.

Consumer confusion Reduction strategies:

Table No. 4 depicts the details of high over choice confusion perceived students opinion about strategy adopted to reduce their overburden at the time of purchase. Among five strategies given, majority of the consumers consulted previous user, which stood first rank. More number of students concentrated on recent models which stood at second rank. Third rank goes to sales executive assistance whereas purchase delay and family and friends advice.

Table No. 5 give picture about male and female student’s opinion on information burden reduction strategies adopted by them during the time of purchase. Majority of the consumers, instead of looking for all brands related information, looking at well known brand information stoods the first rank. Most students given second rank to reputed showroom/dealers information. And the considerable number of students visited to nearest dealers and their college recommended information sources gave the least ranked.

Table No. 6 pictures the ways and means of reducing similarity confusion among the students segment. Among the four strategy given to give their opinion, to reduce the look alike, indifference confusion perceived by the students, majority of them seek additional information from marketers like showroom, dealers which stood the first rank. The second strategy is to dedicate their decision to sales personals. While considerable number of students ignored the look alike confusion and were least bothered about it. Interestingly very few of the students probed all the aspects of laptop which is ranked as fourth.

The Table No.7 represents various ambiguous information avoidance strategies adopted by males and females students in Coimbatore city at the time of laptop purchase. Of the seven risk reduction strategies given, most of the them were given first three ranks to doubt clarification with previous users, consultation with technical experts and ignoring the most difficult information. Approached to other showroom/marketers, concentrated need based purchase which stands fourth and fifth rank respectively and sixth rank goes to decision postponement and delegate to purchase colleagues

GENDER AND VARIOUS TYPES OF CONFUSION:

In order to find the degree of consumer’s confusion among male and female students, ANOVA test performed and result of the test shown in the table.

H1: There is no significant difference in overchoice confusion between male and female students

H 2: There is no significant different in overload confusion between male and female students H 3: There is no significant different in similarity confusion between male and female students H4: There is no significant different in unclarity confusion between male and female students

H5: There is no significant different in technical confusion between male and female students

Table No. 8 shows that there is no significant difference in male and female students on types of consumer confusion: overchoice confusion (F=2.743 p<0.99), information overload (F=.576, p<0.448), similarity confusion (F=3.251, p<0.073), unclarity confusion (F=0.024, p<0.877). Hence, there is no significant difference in confusions between males and female students on purchase of laptop market. The results reveal that male and female students experience same degree of overchoice, information overload, similarity and unclarity confusion. Hence, hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4 is accepted.

Table No 6 High similarity confusion experienced students reduction strategies

	SA	A	SA+A/2	Rank
Ignored the indifference	76 (57.6%)	22 (16.7%)	49 (37.2%)	3
Thoroughly analyzed all the aspect so laptop	30 (22.7%)	54 (40.9%)	42 (31.8%)	4
Additional information from marketers	102 (77.3%)	24 (18.2%)	63 (47.8%)	1
I dedicated to sales executives	13 (9.9%)	93 (70.5%)	53 (40.2)	2

Table No : 7 High unclairty confusion experienced students reduction strategies

	SA	A	N	Rank
Postponed my decision	39(29.1%)	23 (17.2%)	31(23.2%)	6
Approached another marketers/showrooms	42 (31.4%)	39(29.1%)	40.5 (30.3%)	4
Delegated to purchase colleagues	39 (29.1%)	23 (17.2%)	31 (23.2%)	6
Ignore the ambiguous information	42 (31.3%)	41 (30.6%)	41.5 (31%)	3
Clarified with previous users	82 (61.2%)	8 (5.9%)	45 (33.6%)	1
Consulted technical experts	22 (16.4%)	20 (14.9%)	42(15.7%)	2
Concentrated need based purchase	20 (14.9%)	57 (42.5%)	38.5(28.7%)	5

Table No 8 : ANOVA

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Over Choice confusion	Between Groups	0.655	1	0.655	2.743	0.099
	Within Groups	61.383	257	0.239
	Total	62.039	258
Information Overload	Between Groups	0.144	1	0.144	.576	0.448
	Within Groups	64.327	257	0.250
	Total	64.471	258
Similarity confusion	Between Groups	0.809	1	0.809	3.251	0.073
	Within Groups	63.917	257	0.249
	Total	64.726	258
Unclarity Confusion	Between Groups	0.006	1	0.006	0.024	0.877
	Within Groups	64.666	257	0.252
	Total	64.672	258

Further an attempt was made to know how the highly confused students reduced purchase related confusion. Confused consumers deliberately or accidentally apply some self – driven way to reduce cognitive unclarity and these strategies will vary from individual to individual, differ depending on the source of the confusion as well as the specific purchase situation. Individual prior purchase knowledge, fitness of information processing, learning involvement will guarantee the effective confusion-reduction strategies in which turns lesser the purchase dissonance. In laptop market, students were applied certain strategies which is as follows. In order to reduce the overchoice confusion, previous users, sales executives help and recent models choices were used while to reduce information overload burden: collecting limited information about best known brands and visited only reputed showroom/ dealers/ marketers were used effectively.

Additional information from markets and sales executives’ assistance was used by males and females students against high similarity confusion and on the other hand previous user’s advice, consulting technical experts and ignoring the ambiguous message were implemented to lessen the unclarity and technical confusion associated with high involvement products like laptop and these strategies certain extent concurrent with previous findings of Jacoby, 1977 ; Mitchell and Papavassiliou,1997; Thomas Rudolph, 2004; Mitchell and Papavassiliou,1999 ; Iyengar and Lepper, 2000 ;Turnbull et al., 2000 ; Drummond 2004 , Mitchell and Papavassiliou,2005 ; KurtMatzler,2005 ; Leek and Chansawatkit, 2006 ; Leek and Kun, 2006 ; Leek and Chansawatkit,2006 and Hans Kasper et al (2010).

CONCLUSION:

The study concludes that majority of the respondents were male students. Occurrence of consumer confusion during the laptop purchase can be categorized into overchoice, overload, similarity, unclairty. Majority of the students have Dell. More than fifty percent of the males and females students experienced various consumer confusions at the time of laptop purchase. In order to reduce their purchase confusion, certain strategies were applied with respects to types of consumer confusion. ANOVA test reveals that there is no significant difference between gender and types of consumer confusion. The study results have not represented the entire population of the laptop holders and further research suggested among various geographical locations to validate the findings.

REFERENCES:

1. Rafiq, M. and Collins, R. (1996) Lookalikes and Customer Confusion in the grocery sector: an exploratory survey. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research. 6 (4). pp. 329-350.

2. Mitchell, V-W. and Papavassiliou, V. (1997) Exploring consumer confusion in the watch market. Marketing Intelligence and Planning. 15 (4). pp. 164-175.

3. Mitchell, V.-W., and Papavassiliou, V. (1999) , Marketing Causes and Implications of Consumer Confusion. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(4), 319-339.

4. Cohen, Marcel (1999), "Insig“ts into Consumer Confusion," Cons”mer Policy Review, 9 (6), 210-214.

5. Mitchell, V.-W., and Papavassiliou, V. (1999) , Marketing Causes and Implications of Consumer Confusion. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8(4), 319-339.

6. Iyengar , S.S. and Lepper, M.R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one too much of a good thing?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79, No. 6, pp. 995-1006.

7. Peter W. Turnbull ,Sheena Leek ,Grace Ying (2000) ,Customer Confusion: The Mobile Phone Market, Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 16, Issue 1 - 3 , –ages 143 – 163

8. Vincent-Wayne Mitchell, Gianfranco Walsh, Mo Yamin(2005), Towards a Conceptual Model of Consumer Confusion , Advances in Consumer Research, 32(1), 143-150 .

9. Gianfranco Walsh and Vincent-Wayne Mitchell (2005), Consumer Vulnerability to Perceived Product Similarity Problems: Scale Development and Identification, Journal of Macromarketing, 25, 140-152.

10. Taeho Yoh and Brenda Pitts, Edd (2005), Information Sources For College Students Athletic Shoe Purchasing, Smart Online Journal, Volume I, Issue II , 28-33.

11. Kurt Matzler ,Martin Waiguny (2005),Consequences of Customer Confusion in Online Hotel Booking,Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2005 ,Proceedings of the International Conference in Innsbruck, Austria ,pp:306-317.

12. Leek, S. and Kun, D. (2006). Consumer confusion in the Chinese personal computer market. Journal of product and Brand Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 184¬ 193(10).

13. Leek, S. and Chansawatkit, S. (2006). Consumer confusion in the Thai mobile phone market. Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 5, Issue 6, pp. 518-532.

14. Bertha Jacobs and Helena M de Klerk (2007) , Understanding female consumers’ risks perception for apparel purchasing on the Internet , Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol 35, 2007, pp: 47-58.

15. Kuhl,R ; Schulz,W. (2007) , Food quality signals and customer confusion : is there a relevance for the marketing of food product? , Conference paper-EAAE seminar on Quality assurance in food chains – http//www.wageingenacademic.com/books/qmfc.htm , pp-221-230.

16. FigenYeşilada, Alican Kavas(2008) Understanding the Female Consumers’ Decision Making Styles, ,Ozet,Tam Metin,sletmeFakültesiDergisi, Cilt 9, Sayı 2, 2008, 167-185-web.deu.edu.tr/isletme/ifddergi/web_files/92167185.pdf.

17. Nuntasaree Sukato(2008), Changes in male buying ehavior in Thailand – the case of Metrosexual ,The Management Case Study Journal Vol 8, Issue 2, pp 263-270

18. Kawee Boonlertvanich (2009) , Consumer Buying and Decision Making Behavior of a Digital Camera in Thailand , RU. Int. J. vol. 3(1), PP.57-66

19. A. Sengupta and Noopur Agrawal(2009) , Identifying and Analyzing the impact of key factors of Leading to Brand confusion in Advertising-A macro analysis ,Delhi Business Review X Vol. 10, No. 1 ,pp.79-88 (January - June–2009)

20. Hans Kasper, Josee Bloemer, Paul H. Driessen(2010) ,Coping with confusion: The case of the Dutch mobile phone market , Managing Service Quality ,Volume 20 , issue 2 , pp.140-160.

Received on 27.04.2011 Accepted on 14.05.2011

Asian J. Management 2(2): April-June, 2011 page 71-76

	SA	A	SA+A/2	Rank
I deferred my purchase decision	35 (22.4%)	56 (35.9%)	30.5 (29.2%)	4
Family and friends recommendation	09 (5.8%)	41 (26.3%)	25 (16.1%)	5
Advice of previous users	77 (49.4%)	77 (49.4%)	77 (49.4%)	1
Seek assistance from sales executives	81 (51.9%)	28 (18%)	54.5 (35%)	3
Concentrated on recent models and its choices	48 (30.8%)	98 (62.8%)	73 (46.8%)	2

	SA	A	SA+A/2	Rank
Limited best known brand information	122 (88.4%)	12 (8.7%)	67 (48.6%)	1
Went to reputed showrooms and dealers	59 (42.8%)	69 (50.0%)	64 (46.4%)	2
Visited to nearest dealers	70 (50.7%)	36 (26.1%)	53 (38.4%)	3
My college recommended brand and information sources	13 (9.4%)	23 (16.7%)	18 (13.1%)	4

Types and levels of consumer confusion	Overchoice		Overload		Similarity		Unclarity
Types and levels of consumer confusion	No of respondents and percentage		No of respondents and percentage		No of respondents and percentage		No of respondents and percentage
Low	103	39.8	121	46.7	127	49.0	125	48.3
High	156	60.2	138	53.3	132	51.0	134	51.7
Total	259	100	259	100	259	100	259	100