Does consumer confusion lead to purchase decision delay among customers experiencing pre-purchase cognitive dissonance? Open Access

The research on consumer confusion initially appeared in the psychology literature (Friedman, 1966). Subsequently, the marketing literature focused on studies emphasizing information overload (Jacoby, 1984). In the past, consumer confusion was not a prominent issue in the business or marketing field, as only a limited number of products were available. However, as competition has increased over time, the wide array of available products makes consumers uncertain about what to purchase (Malhotra, 1982). Subsequently, various authors have approached the concept of consumer confusion differently, resulting in diverse definitions of this phenomenon in the existing body of literature. According to (Chauhan & Sagar, 2021, p. 446) “consumer confusion is an uncomfortable cognitive state of mind in the decision-making process that affects choice behaviour through its affective (emotional) and behavioural consequences”.

Consumer confusion has been observed in various industries in recent years, including e-hospitality (Sharma, Singh, & Prakash, 2023), the healthcare industry (Chauhan & Sagar, 2021), online travel agencies (Wei, Liu, Li, Hou, & Li, 2023), tourism (Sharma, Pandher, & Prakash, 2022), mobile phones, and product labeling (Fitzgerald, Russo Donovan, Kees, & Kozup, 2019). Confusion poses a significant challenge for both consumers and marketers across many industries.

Several factors contribute to consumer confusion, including ineffective marketplace stimuli, poor presentation of product information on limited web space (Sharma et al., 2023), inconsistent information (Zečević, Gidaković, Žabkar, & Kos Koklič, 2022), product labels (Wilde, Pomeranz, Lizewski, & Zhang, 2020) and low knowledge (Dinçer Arslan, Okutan, & Dil, 2022). Consumers are being presented with an increasing volume of information that is challenging to comprehend and interpret, which can result in confusion, anxiety, stress and inaccurate decision-making. Consumer confusion can also negatively impact brand loyalty, brand image and company profitability and sales (Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1997; Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1999). Prior research has identified three dimensions of consumer confusion: similarity, overload and ambiguity. This concept is commonly known as consumer confusion proneness (Walsh, Hennig-Thurau, & Vincent-Wayne, 2002, 2007). In this study, the researcher employs these three dimensions to conceptualize the notion of consumer confusion.

India is the fourth-largest beauty market in the world, encompassing skincare, fragrance and haircare, generating around $430 billion in revenue in 2022. Despite global economic challenges, the beauty industry has proven resilient and is expected to reach approximately $580 billion by 2027, growing at a projected rate of 6% annually (The beauty market in 2023: New industry trends | McKinsey, n.d.). The cosmetics industry is a significant economic sector, with substantial revenues generated globally. When faced with numerous options, consumers often experience decision overload, resulting in confusion about which products to choose (Kim & Kim, 2023). Cosmetic brands often use persuasive marketing tactics and claims to promote their products. These tactics and claims can be misleading or exaggerated. Consumers may struggle to differentiate between information and marketing hype. These can lead to dissatisfaction, frustration and wasted time and effort for consumers.

Consumer confusion can also affect the brand in the short and long term. In the short term, it can postpone decisions (Sharma et al., 2023) and lost sales (Walsh et al., 2007). Confused customers might express dissatisfaction online or through word-of-mouth, damaging the brand’s short-term reputation. Over the long term, confusion affects brand trust and loyalty (Walsh et al., 2007; Walsh & Mitchell, 2010). It also affects brand equity (Kocyigit & Ringle, 2011) and enhances the switching intention of consumers (Chauhan & Sagar, 2023). To mitigate these effects, brands must balance immediate actions, such as simplifying communications and enhancing customer support, with long-term strategies like streamlining product portfolios and investing in clear, consistent messaging to build consumer confidence. Therefore, it is vital to study the impact of consumer confusion and its consequences in the marketplace.

In previous literature, authors have discussed consumer confusion and its consequences, such as negative word of mouth (Sharma, Pandher, & Prakash, 2024), negative emotions (Sharma et al., 2023), dissatisfaction and distrust (Moon, Costello, & Koo, 2017). decision postponement (Xue & Jo, 2024) and decreased brand loyalty (Chauhan & Sagar, 2021). However, one area that has not received enough attention is how confusion can lead to cognitive dissonance and how consumers respond to this psychological discomfort (Chauhan & Sagar, 2021). Previous researchers highlight the need to investigate how consumer confusion proneness (such as similarity confusion, overload confusion and ambiguity confusion) affects cognitive dissonance (Kurtulmuşoğlu & Atalay, 2020). Despite extensive studies, there is a gap in understanding cognitive dissonance experienced before making a purchase (Gomez, Falales, & Villaflores, 2022; Koller & Salzberger, 2007). This study focuses on filling that gap by examining the impact of consumer confusion on cognitive dissonance in the pre-purchase context.

The conceptual model proposed by (Saranya & Joji Alex, 2024) was developed through an extensive review of existing literature and identified a significant gap in understanding the relationship between consumer confusion proneness, cognitive dissonance and decision postponement (see Figure 1). Although this framework provided valuable theoretical insight, it lacked empirical validation. To address this limitation, the present study extends the proposed model by applying it to a high-involvement, feeling-oriented and frequently purchased product category (cosmetics). Through this empirical examination, the research aims to validate the theoretical relationships outlined in the original conceptual model, thereby enhancing its practical relevance and generalizability within real consumer contexts.

Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that individuals attempt to alleviate dissonance by implementing a reduction strategy, and in the pre-purchase context, they identify decision postponement as one such strategy (Koller & Salzberger, 2007). Occasionally, the delay in making purchase decisions results in a low return on investment, poor cash flow, and negative impacts on profitability (Sharma et al., 2023). Confusion prevents consumers from making a purchase decision. Therefore, it is crucial to thoroughly examine the concepts of consumer confusion, cognitive dissonance and their impact on decision postponement. This thorough examination will provide valuable insights to answer the following research questions.

“Similarity confusion is defined as the tendency to perceive various products within a product category as visually and functionally similar” (Walsh et al., 2007, p. 702). The resemblance between the products is determined by shared characteristics in their packaging, including the shape, size, color and typography or logo (Balabanis & Craven, 1997). For example, Aveda and Aveeno are brands with similar names, and Aveda's shampoo product packaging employs a similar design (Qiao & Griffin, 2021). Manufacturers of branded goods argue that imitative packaging causes consumer confusion, resulting in either buying the wrong product or mistakenly thinking that the imitation products are very similar to the branded ones.

Overall, brand name similarity and packaging similarity, product feature similarity, color scheme similarity and name and logo similarity can also lead to similarity confusion. Previous research identified similarity confusion in various product categories, including mobile phones (Turnbull, Leek, & Ying, 2000). The said study found that consumers experienced brand-similarity confusion, making them perceive all mobile phones as similar and making it difficult for consumers to differentiate between the brands. Product feature similarity is seen in the case of iPhone and Samsung smartphones, which share similar designs and features (Top designer says Samsung “confusingly similar” to iPhone, 2012). Nike and Mikey, both sports shoe brands, have some brand name similarities, which can also lead to confusion (Rafiq & Collins, 1996). These examples illustrate how similarity confusion can occur in various aspects of marketing. Consumers who perceive a more remarkable resemblance between two stimuli are more likely to experience confusion (Balabanis & Craven, 1997). When faced with comparable choices while making decisions, consumers often believe they will not be able to select the optimal option, which may lead to cognitive dissonance (Barta, Gurrea, & Flavián, 2023). Based on these observations, it is hypothesized that.

“Overload confusion is defined as consumers’ difficulty when confronted with more product information and alternatives than they can process to get to know, compare, and comprehend alternatives” (Walsh et al., 2007, p. 704). Overload confusion can result from overwhelming information about products or services on the market that exceeds the human ability to evaluate (Hall-Phillips & Shah, 2017). The growing quantity of products and the extensive information associated with each brand can overwhelm and perplex consumers, leading to stress, frustration and poor decision-making. When consumers dedicate more time and effort to gathering and analyzing information, a heightened likelihood of experiencing information overload is observed (Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1999).

The bounded rationality theory acknowledges that individuals have limited cognitive abilities, including limited processing capacity, memory and attention. As a result, decision-makers cannot comprehensively analyze all available information or consider all possible alternatives before deciding. Several researchers argue that humans have limited cognitive capacities, which can be hindered by the overwhelming amount of information and options available, leading to decision-making difficulties and confusion (Kim, 2021; Sharma et al., 2022).

Consumers are confused due to the vast array of information from various channels. They are grappling with the challenge of assimilating the necessary information. When they walk into a large store like Walmart, they are overwhelmed by the vast number of products and choices available (Blasheck & Noor, 2020, p. 15). Furthermore, browsing websites like Amazon and Flipkart makes consumers feel overwhelmed by the numerous options and reviews (Dwivedi, Anand, Johri, Banerji, & Gaur, 2020).

The overload confusion is also prevalent in the cosmetics industry. A skincare line with multiple products for different skin types and concerns makes it difficult for consumers to choose (Kim & Kim, 2023). Reading a skincare product label with a long list of ingredients and technical terms makes it difficult to understand the benefits and usage. Consumers frequently encounter difficulties when confronted with excessive product information and options that exceed their capacity to process, making it challenging to effectively understand, compare and evaluate alternatives (Walsh et al., 2007). Consumers who encounter an overwhelming amount of information in the marketplace may often experience a state of cognitive dissonance (Oshikawa, 1970). The following hypothesis is hypothesized.

“Ambiguity confusion is defined as “consumers' tolerance for processing unclear, misleading, or ambiguous products, product-related information, or advertisements” (Walsh et al., 2007, p. 705). Despite several laws and consumer protection organizations to safeguard consumers, some companies may still present their product information ambiguously or deceptively (Leek & Chansawatkit, 2006). Consumers who struggle with alternative comparisons find such information more ambiguous, potentially leading to cognitive dissonance.

According to Arun Gupta, Convenor of the National Advocacy in Public interest (NAPi), “consumers have to pass through misleading ads and label lies.” The uncertainty in the labeling affects the consumer's choices. False advertising or misleading product claims, lack of pricing transparency, inadequate product manuals and excessive product complexity can all create confusion and ambiguity. These factors also contribute to cognitive uncertainty (Mitchell, Walsh, & Yamin, 2005). When customers struggle to comprehend a product's features, benefits or application, it can occasionally cause them to feel dissonant. Consequently, it is hypothesized that.

Leon Festinger first introduced the cognitive dissonance concept in 1957. It is a psychological phenomenon related to the unease or tension resulting from holding contradictory beliefs, values, or attitudes. “Pre-purchase cognitive dissonance is defined as a psychological state that evokes emotions such as anxiety; less confusion will reduce these emotions.” (Barta et al., 2023, p. 04).

Understanding cognitive dissonance is essential in psychology, marketing and communication, as it helps to explain why people may resist change, engage in self-justification or experience discomfort when confronted with conflicting information or experiences. By recognizing the role of cognitive dissonance, individuals and organizations can better understand human behavior and tailor their strategies to effectively address and mitigate cognitive dissonance when it occurs.

“Decision postponement is defined as a decision deferment to better understand the confusing circumstances related to a purchase” (Sharma et al., 2022, p. 02). Consumers often struggle to reach a decision when making a purchase, and occasionally, they experience delays or postponements in their decisions (Walsh et al., 2007). Research has identified several factors contributing to consumer decision delay, including difficulty in selection, time pressure and the dynamic nature of the shopping process (Greenleaf & Lehmann, 1995; Greenleaf & Lehmann, 1991). When presented with two equally desirable options, customers may experience choice conflict and postpone their decision to a later time. Customers are believed to intentionally abandon their purchases to avoid making difficult decisions (Dhar, 1997).

Kim (2021), Koller & Salzberger (2007) noted that certain negative emotions, like regret and annoyance, have been associated with customers' tendency to delay decision-making. Some negative emotions, such as anxiety, doubt and uncertainty, are also associated with the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Dissonance also arises in the form of purchase decision difficulty. High cognitive dissonance may increase the chance of decision postponement (Koller & Salzberger, 2007). Based on these observations, it is hypothesized that.

During the pre-purchase stage, inexperienced buyers often encounter challenges when selecting a product with which they are unfamiliar. Novice buyers often encounter themselves in a state of indecision due to either insufficient product information or an overwhelming amount of information. This confusion and perplexity lead to uncertainty and cognitive dissonance (Hasan, 2012; Jain, Patel, & Rathod, 2007). The anxiety experienced by consumers may lead to an overwhelming amount of information, resulting in a decision not to purchase the product immediately and instead to explore the available options later (Menasco & Hawkins, 1978). Cognitive dissonance is a significant obstacle for a market, as it occasionally causes customers to postpone or delay their purchasing decisions (Hasan, 2012; Jain et al., 2007, p. 284). Cognitive dissonance theory posits that individuals possess an innate motivation to uphold coherence within their beliefs, attitudes and actions. When inconsistency occurs, individuals may experience confusion due to cognitive dissonance in their purchase decisions. This motivates individuals to reduce or eliminate discomfort by changing their beliefs, attitudes or behaviors. Decision postponement emerged as a reduction strategy of cognitive dissonance at the time of purchase (Jain et al., 2007; Koller & Salzberger, 2007; Hilton, 1962) asserted that postponing decisions later can reduce cognitive dissonance in short periods. Therefore, the following hypothesis is hypothesized.

The researcher first asks the respondents specific screening questions, such as “have you recently purchased or do you intend to purchase cosmetics products?” and “are you currently searching for cosmetics products?”. If respondents' answer were yes, they were considered for the study. “NO” responses were eliminated.

Data were obtained from multiple cosmetics retailers at the point of sale. The study included exclusive cosmetic shops that sell cosmetic items. A questionnaire was used to collect data from customers who left the shop without making a purchase. A total of 220 samples were collected. The researcher employed purposive sampling by selecting participants based on specific criteria. The sample included both male and female participants aged between 18 and 50. Only individuals who were actively seeking information regarding cosmetic products were considered. Subsequently, Amos-SEM, PROCESS macro mediation analysis, and independent t-tests were done.

The questionnaire comprises statements related to consumer confusion (S, O, A), pre-purchase cognitive dissonance and decision postponement. The variables were assessed using a five-point rating scale. Consumer confusion (S, O, A) and decision postponement scales are adapted from (Walsh et al., 2007) and the pre-purchase cognitive dissonance scale was adopted from (Koller & Salzberger, 2007).

The likelihood of confusion can vary among individuals regardless of the characteristics of the stimuli due to specific individual traits, such as age, gender and education, which can influence their pre-purchase phase and decision-making (Mitchell et al., 2005). All of these demographic factors were considered in this study (see Table 1). Age, gender, income and education all play a crucial role in shaping consumer behavior in the cosmetics market.

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables. The mean and standard for similarity confusion are 3.21 and 0.89, respectively; this suggests that respondents generally perceive a moderate level of similarity among cosmetic products. This indicates that while some products might be unique, many are perceived as similar. The mean and standard deviation for overload confusion are 3.29 and 0.75, respectively; respondents experience a moderate level of overload confusion when choosing cosmetics. This indicates that the number of available options or information provided might be overwhelming. While those for ambiguity confusion is 3.44, and 0.80, respectively. It indicates a relatively higher perception of ambiguity among the products, suggesting that respondents often find it challenging to understand the differences or benefits of different cosmetics. Most of the respondents experienced a similar level of ambiguity. The highest mean obtained was 3.44. It demonstrates that ambiguity confusion is an important dimension.

Cognitive dissonance mean, and SD values are 3.01 and 0.89. It indicates that respondents experience a moderate level of dissonance in the pre-consumption stage of purchase. There is some variability in the level of cognitive dissonance experienced by consumers, with some consumers experiencing more than others. Decision postponement (3.17 and 0.88) suggests that the decision-making process for buying cosmetics can be delayed due to dissonance. The results indicate a moderate variability in decision postponement, with respondents delaying their decisions to varying degrees. All of the variables have a slight standard deviation. This implies that there is a tight clustering around the mean. It indicates that the majority of respondents share the same opinion.

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using SPSS to evaluate the content validity of the questionnaire items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure for the variables is 0.909, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.7. Additionally, b = Bartlett's test of sphericity demonstrated statistically significant (p < 0.000), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. All items loaded correctly, indicating significant factor loadings on their respective factors. This evidence suggests that the constructs are well defined and the items are reasonable measures of the underlying factors, supporting the validity of the measurement model.

Then, the CFA was performed to assess the convergent validity and discriminant validity. The model included five constructs and its items. The significant factor loading of the 21 items ranged from 0.661 to 0.879 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2019) (see Table 3). The normality test indicated that the skewness and kurtosis values of all variables are within the range of −1 to +1. It suggests that the data are approximately normal. The variables' reliability values are illustrated in Table 1 (Nunnally, 1978). advised that the Cronbach’s alpha value exceed 0.7 to indicate satisfactory internal consistency.

From the CFA result, the model yields satisfactory fit indices; specifically X²/df = 490/182 = 2.6 was below 4. CMIN = 2.69, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.884 and TLI = 0.866. RMSEA = 0.088. RFI = 0.802, supported the model fit of (Hair et al., 2019). Table 1 shows that the composite reliability of constructs is above 0.7 (Hair et al., 2019). The AVE of all constructs was above the threshold value of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Therefore, results indicate significant reliability and convergent validity.

To ensure discriminant validity, the correlations between factors should not exceed 0.85 (Hair et al., 2019); all the correlation values are below 0.85 (see Table 4). Moreover, the square roots of average variance extracted (AVEs) exceeded the factor correlations of both the rows and columns (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Thus, discriminant validity is ensured for all variables. Overall, the measurement scale and construct were satisfactory in reliability, discriminant validity and convergent validity.

The researcher employed a structural equation model to test the conceptual framework. The model fit was tested using the Amos 21.0 version. Table 5 shows the path coefficient values of the variables.

The results of the structural equation model show that similarity, overload and ambiguity confusion have a positive effect on pre-purchase cognitive dissonance (H1 = 0.28, H2 = 0.24, H3 = 0.23), and pre-purchase cognitive dissonance has a positive effect on decision postponement (H4 = 0.57). Here, the entire hypothesis was positive. This suggests that the three dimensions of confusion lead to pre-purchase cognitive dissonance and also have an underlying effect on decision postponement. The result is presented in Figure 2.

SPSS PROCESS macro was used to check the mediating relationship between the variables (see Table 6).

The study assessed the mediation role of pre-purchase cognitive dissonance on the relationship between three dimensions of confusion (S, O, A) and decision postponement. The results indicate a significant indirect effect of S, O, A on decision postponement (ß = 0.153, t = 3.802). Furthermore, the direct effect of consumer confusion (S, O, A) on decision postponement in the presence of the mediator was also found significant (ß = 0.0897, p < 0.001). Hence, pre-purchase cognitive dissonance partially mediated the relationship between consumer confusion and decision postponement (H5 is supported).

Independent t-test was employed to compare the confusion levels and gender (Male, Female). The mean value of similarity confusion (male: 3.28, female: 3.18, p = 0.32 >0.05) is not statistically significant. The result of overload confusion (male: 3.30; female: 3.28; p = 0.90 >0.05) is not statistically significant. Ambiguity confusion (male: 3.50; female: 3.40; p = 0.38 >0 .05) suggests an insignificant outcome. Pre-purchase cognitive dissonance (male: 3.06, female: 2.98, p = 0.55 >0.05) and decision postponement (Male: 3.18, female: 3.16, p = 0.85 > 0.05) is not statistically significant. The result suggests no difference between the confusion levels of males and females.

The results from H1, H2 and H3 indicate that consumers confronted with similar options, an overwhelming amount of information and ambiguous details during the product selection process experience psychological discomfort and anxiety, which ultimately leads to feelings of cognitive dissonance. All three dimensions of confusion have a positive relationship with pre-purchase cognitive dissonance. These findings align with previous studies on consumer confusion (Barta et al., 2023; Oshikawa, 1970). It can be seen that overload and ambiguity confusion both indicate a moderate level of confusion among consumers, with β values of 0.24 and 0.23, respectively. Similarity confusion shows consumers experiencing higher levels of similarity among the product's features, benefits, packaging and pricing in cosmetics (β 0.28). These results indicate that similarity confusion is more intense than ambiguity and overload confusion in the cosmetics industry. For example, skincare product manufacturers frequently highlight identical terms such as “hydrating,” “brightening and “anti-aging” and some advertising strategies of cosmetic products claim they are “dermatologist approved” or “clinically tested”. This similarity can also contribute to consumer confusion (Lukauskaite, 2021). The cosmetics industry primarily relies on branding and visual appeal as a marketing tool to attract customers. However, the proliferation of competing firms that employ a similar marketing strategy is making it difficult for consumers to make decisions.

Additionally, this study explores the effect of pre-purchase cognitive dissonance on decision postponement (H4). It indicates that pre-purchase cognitive dissonance has a strong positive association with decision postponement (β 0.57). The results reveal that when consumers experience high uncertainty and internal conflict before purchasing, they are highly likely to postpone their purchase decisions. This study found that pre-purchase cognitive dissonance is a significant barrier to finalizing purchase decisions for cosmetic products.

When consumers encounter contradictory information about a product or service, mainly when presented with more appealing alternatives, it can lead to pre-purchase cognitive dissonance during their cosmetics purchase. “Nowadays, people are more concerned about their physique and appearance”. As a result, consumers are spending more time for selecting cosmetic products. Moreover, cosmetic purchases are more financially and emotionally significant. During this searching period, consumers sometimes experience anxiety, leading them to postpone their investigation of available alternatives and refrain from purchasing the product, which results in cognitive dissonance. Therefore, it will lead to a delay in the decision-making behavior of consumers. They may engage in more extended decision-making processes, comparing products, reading reviews and considering their product customer value fit. This result supports the findings of (Graff, Sophonthummapharn, & Parida, 2012; Hasan, 2012). Who stated that cognitive dissonance may cause consumers to delay their decisions.

Based on the result of descriptive statistics, each of the variables shows a modest standard deviation, suggesting a tight clustering around the mean. This indicates that most respondents in this study share a similar perspective. Also, the researcher observed that (Table 6) cognitive dissonance partially mediates the relationship between consumer confusion and decision postponement (H5). This conclusion suggests that confusion directly and indirectly leads to decision postponement through cognitive dissonance. This indicates that when customers are confused by conflicting information or too many options, they may suffer psychological discomfort (cognitive dissonance), making them hesitant to decide. Therefore, companies must acknowledge this issue in the marketplace; cosmetics brands can better tailor their strategies to build consumer trust and facilitate more decisive purchases from customers.

Additionally, the researcher conducted an independent t-test to determine if there is any association between consumer confusion and gender. The results indicate that there is no difference in the levels of consumer confusion based on gender. This result contradicts the findings of (Sharma et al., 2022). Furthermore, the researcher discovered that the dissonance level varies slightly between males and females. Males experience more dissonance than females. However, the chances of decision postponement are the same for both genders.

Consumer confusion studies provide valuable insights for both consumers and marketers, leading to improved product development and customer interactions. The researcher found that consumers in the cosmetics sector need to understand the existence of pre-purchase cognitive dissonance and the reasons behind decision postponement. It assists customers in making better choices and marketers in building customer-attracting techniques.

The findings of the study have some practical implications. By addressing consumer confusion effectively, businesses can adopt new and innovative marketing strategies for improving customer satisfaction, reducing returns or complaints and ultimately enhancing brand loyalty and reputation. It also helps to reduce consumer confusion in the marketplace. In the cosmetics industry, using distinct packaging and descriptions to highlight unique features and benefits can reduce similarity confusion. To minimize overload confusion, limit the excessive amounts of information about the products; instead, simplify the content.

In order to prevent ambiguity confusion among consumers, it is essential to maintain consistency in messaging and information, eliminate misleading information and advertisements, provide excellent customer service support and offer a platform for consumers to report their complaints and issues. Companies should address these issues and take necessary actions to reduce the confusion and its consequences.

The marketplace is critical to increase customer satisfaction and trust, and which will enhance the decision-making. Clear labeling, trial and sample programs, flexible return policies and AI-powered chatbots can considerably minimize purchasing confusion among cosmetics customers aged 18 to 50. Additionally, detailed and transparent labeling helps consumers to understand product contents, usage, and advantages, allowing them to make more informed decisions. Trial and sample programs allow people to test items before committing, which is especially useful for skincare and beauty, where compatibility is critical. Flexible return policies give a safety net, promoting exploration without the risk of financial loss. Together, these strategies ensure that consumers feel confident and satisfied with their decisions, lowering the likelihood of pre-purchase dissonance and delayed purchases due to confusion. AI-powered chatbots serve as personalized guides, answering common queries and making tailored recommendations, making shopping easier and more confident for this broad age range.

Also, AR technology offers consumers interactive tools to visualize products and their context in real time. In the cosmetics industry, AR apps allow users to virtually “try on” makeup products, enabling a better understanding of shades, textures, and compatibility. Research has shown that consumers using AR can reduce consumer confusion while simultaneously increasing consumers' purchase intentions (Barta et al., 2023). Numerous cosmetics vendors have already implemented augmented reality technologies. For instance, L'Oréal offers virtual product testing on its website, and its online browsers are accessible on desktop and laptop computers. Other beauty brands like Garnier have also adapted to the online environment. Madison Reed and Wella allow customers to experiment with various hair colors. This technique helps consumers make comparisons virtually. Virtual product visualization enhances consumers' confidence in their decisions and generates purchase-related behavioural intentions (Qin, Osatuyi, & Xu, 2021). Additionally, cognitive dissonance studies provide valuable insights for marketers in predicting and resolving potential conflicts or uncertainties consumers may encounter before purchasing.

Despite its negative impact on companies and marketers, decision postponement emerges as an effective coping strategy for consumers. As Shiu (2021) highlights, postponing decisions allows consumers to manage the stress and complexity of overwhelming choices, ultimately reducing confusion. Marketers and businesses must acknowledge this behaviour and consider supporting consumers during this reflective period without exerting undue pressure.

As discussed by Schweizer, Kotouc, and Wagner (2006, p. 184), simplifying purchase decisions is another critical strategy for alleviating confusion. Companies can address this by reducing the cognitive load through precise product categorization, transparent labeling, and personalized recommendations, helping consumers navigate choices with greater ease.

The study also reinforces the importance of consultative selling, as emphasized by Walsh et al. (2007). Providing access to knowledgeable salespersons who can guide consumers with empathetic and informed advice remains valuable in minimizing confusion, particularly in complex purchasing scenarios.

Furthermore, consumers commonly adopt strategies to reduce confusion, such as the extent of information searches, sharing the decision-making process with a knowledgeable person, or seeking professional advice (Anninou, 2018). Businesses can facilitate these behaviors by offering expert consultations, peer-driven recommendations, and accessible online platforms where consumers can seek guidance and collaborate in decision-making. By integrating these insights, marketers and organizations can develop targeted strategies that not only address consumer confusion but also enhance satisfaction and trust, fostering a more seamless and confident decision-making process.

This study supports and extends the cognitive dissonance theory, particularly in the context of consumer decision-making. Previous research related to cognitive dissonance primarily focused on post-purchase context. However, this study highlights the occurrence of dissonance during the pre-purchase phase, driven by confusion. This suggests that cognitive dissonance theory needs to encompass a broader range of consumer experiences, including the pre-purchase decision-making process. This study also integrates consumer confusion into the bounded rationality theory, offering new insight into studies on consumer behaviour.

The results indicated several areas where further research could be conducted. First, this study could not consider any moderating variables; this is both a limitation and a direction for future research. One possible moderating variable to explore is perceived risk, which may influence the relationship between consumer confusion and its consequences (Chauhan & Sagar, 2021). In this case, the study takes into account just one mediator variable. Other mediating factors, including switching costs and unpleasant emotions, should be the focus of future studies (Moon et al., 2017). Data was collected only from cosmetics users in the context of a pre-purchase information search. Future research could focus on other product categories with larger samples. The researcher only compared gender and consumer confusion levels; future research could investigate the relationship between other demographic factors and different types of confusion.