Consumers frequently continue using health products even when they appear ineffective. This study aims to investigate why such perseverance occurs, focusing on the evaluability of product claims: how easily consumers can assess whether a treatment has worked. Specifically, it examines whether low-evaluability claims (e.g. “boosts immunity”) promote greater persistence after perceived failure compared to high-evaluability claims (e.g. “relieves headache”). The study also explores whether attribution of blame to the product mediates this relationship. By addressing the psychological mechanisms that support continued engagement with ineffective remedies, the research contributes to consumer behavior theory and offers insights relevant to public health communication.
A between-subjects experimental design was used with 126 participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants were randomly assigned to recall either a high-evaluability or low-evaluability treatment experience. Key dependent measures included treatment perseverance (i.e. how long they continued using the product after perceived failure) and blame attribution (percentage of failure attributed to the product vs other causes). ANCOVAs tested the direct effects of evaluability on perseverance and attribution, while a mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 4) evaluated whether attribution mediated the relationship between evaluability and perseverance. Open-ended responses were coded to control for treatment type and evaluation method.
Participants exposed to low-evaluability treatments (e.g. immune boosters) reported significantly greater perseverance and lower blame attribution compared to those recalling high-evaluability treatments (e.g. headache relief). However, the mediation analysis did not support blame attribution as the mechanism linking evaluability and perseverance. Although evaluability influenced both outcomes, attribution did not significantly predict perseverance when included in the model. These findings suggest that low evaluability fosters continued product use despite failure, not through blame deflection but possibly via other cognitive or motivational mechanisms. The results offer new insights into consumer persistence with ineffective credence goods and the psychological buffers that enable it.
Public health campaigns and consumer protection efforts should recognize that consumers may not abandon ineffective products simply due to failure. When product claims are vague or difficult to evaluate, ambiguity allows for continued belief and use. Clearer labeling, improved consumer education about the nature of low-evaluability claims and regulatory efforts to discourage misleading product messaging could help curb unwarranted perseverance. Marketers and product developers should also be aware that ambiguous claims can unintentionally enable long-term engagement. Designing transparent feedback mechanisms may improve consumer trust and product accountability.
Persisting with ineffective treatments can lead to delayed medical care, wasted financial resources and reduced trust in evidence-based interventions. Understanding the role of evaluability helps explain why certain pseudoscientific or alternative remedies continue to thrive despite lacking efficacy. This insight has societal relevance in contexts where misinformation and health-related pseudoscience flourish. By highlighting psychological vulnerabilities, such as difficulty in attributing failure, this research informs social efforts to promote critical thinking and informed decision-making. Addressing evaluability in consumer education could support more discerning engagement with health products, potentially improving public health outcomes and reducing harm from ineffective treatments.
This study offers an integration of evaluability and attribution theory to explain why consumers persist in using ineffective remedies. While past research has examined blame attribution or consumer commitment in isolation, this research connects these constructs in a systematic framework using real-world treatment recall. The findings advance the understanding of credence goods by showing how ambiguity in outcome assessment can sustain belief in product efficacy. The paper contributes original empirical evidence that evaluability shapes perseverance behavior independently of blame, offering both theoretical refinement and practical value for consumer researchers, public health strategists and behavioral economists.
