Framework for Understanding Misleading Information in Daily Shopping

Jesper Clement, Mette Skovgaard Andersen, Katherine O'Doherty Jensen

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of disagreement between companies and consumers with respect to misleading information and to make suggestions as to how the conflict might be resolved.

Design/methodology/approach – Based on qualitative research methods, the authors discuss possible grounds for controversies with respect to product information and present a possible framework, inspired by the work of Boltanski and Thévenot, for examining these controversies.

Findings – An analysis of arguments shows that consumer representatives and companies, not surprisingly, agree on general moral principles as, for instance, the importance of not lying about the product; however they tend to disagree about where the boundaries between acceptable and misleading information should be drawn in practice. The findings point to the fact that the differences might partly be explained by Boltanski and Thévenots' “orders of worth” and that this classification would seem to provide a fruitful tool for identifying the character and basis of differences of opinions regarding whether or not product information is deemed to be misleading and hence form the basis for a new tool in the management toolbox for testing potentially misleading information.

Research limitations/implications – The data behind the analysis are limited and retrieved in a Danish environment, for which reason more research should be carried out in order to broaden the perspectives of the research.

Practical implications – To reduce controversies the paper proposes a reciprocal recognition of the particular order of worth from which an assessment is made.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftQualitative Market Research
Vol/bind15
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)110 - 127
Antal sider18
ISSN1352-2752
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2012

Citer dette

Clement, Jesper ; Skovgaard Andersen, Mette ; Jensen, Katherine O'Doherty . / Framework for Understanding Misleading Information in Daily Shopping. I: Qualitative Market Research. 2012 ; Bind 15, Nr. 2. s. 110 - 127.
@article{7d404c844d474d669267a31de377726b,
title = "Framework for Understanding Misleading Information in Daily Shopping",
abstract = "Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of disagreement between companies and consumers with respect to misleading information and to make suggestions as to how the conflict might be resolved.Design/methodology/approach – Based on qualitative research methods, the authors discuss possible grounds for controversies with respect to product information and present a possible framework, inspired by the work of Boltanski and Th{\'e}venot, for examining these controversies.Findings – An analysis of arguments shows that consumer representatives and companies, not surprisingly, agree on general moral principles as, for instance, the importance of not lying about the product; however they tend to disagree about where the boundaries between acceptable and misleading information should be drawn in practice. The findings point to the fact that the differences might partly be explained by Boltanski and Th{\'e}venots' “orders of worth” and that this classification would seem to provide a fruitful tool for identifying the character and basis of differences of opinions regarding whether or not product information is deemed to be misleading and hence form the basis for a new tool in the management toolbox for testing potentially misleading information.Research limitations/implications – The data behind the analysis are limited and retrieved in a Danish environment, for which reason more research should be carried out in order to broaden the perspectives of the research.Practical implications – To reduce controversies the paper proposes a reciprocal recognition of the particular order of worth from which an assessment is made.",
keywords = "Denmark, Conventions Theory, Communication Gap, Misleading, Controversy, Advertising, Product Information , Consumer Behaviour",
author = "Jesper Clement and {Skovgaard Andersen}, Mette and Jensen, {Katherine O'Doherty}",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1108/13522751211215859",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "110 -- 127",
journal = "Qualitative Market Research",
issn = "1352-2752",
publisher = "JAI Press",
number = "2",

}

Framework for Understanding Misleading Information in Daily Shopping. / Clement, Jesper; Skovgaard Andersen, Mette; Jensen, Katherine O'Doherty .

I: Qualitative Market Research, Bind 15, Nr. 2, 2012, s. 110 - 127.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Framework for Understanding Misleading Information in Daily Shopping

AU - Clement, Jesper

AU - Skovgaard Andersen, Mette

AU - Jensen, Katherine O'Doherty

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of disagreement between companies and consumers with respect to misleading information and to make suggestions as to how the conflict might be resolved.Design/methodology/approach – Based on qualitative research methods, the authors discuss possible grounds for controversies with respect to product information and present a possible framework, inspired by the work of Boltanski and Thévenot, for examining these controversies.Findings – An analysis of arguments shows that consumer representatives and companies, not surprisingly, agree on general moral principles as, for instance, the importance of not lying about the product; however they tend to disagree about where the boundaries between acceptable and misleading information should be drawn in practice. The findings point to the fact that the differences might partly be explained by Boltanski and Thévenots' “orders of worth” and that this classification would seem to provide a fruitful tool for identifying the character and basis of differences of opinions regarding whether or not product information is deemed to be misleading and hence form the basis for a new tool in the management toolbox for testing potentially misleading information.Research limitations/implications – The data behind the analysis are limited and retrieved in a Danish environment, for which reason more research should be carried out in order to broaden the perspectives of the research.Practical implications – To reduce controversies the paper proposes a reciprocal recognition of the particular order of worth from which an assessment is made.

AB - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of disagreement between companies and consumers with respect to misleading information and to make suggestions as to how the conflict might be resolved.Design/methodology/approach – Based on qualitative research methods, the authors discuss possible grounds for controversies with respect to product information and present a possible framework, inspired by the work of Boltanski and Thévenot, for examining these controversies.Findings – An analysis of arguments shows that consumer representatives and companies, not surprisingly, agree on general moral principles as, for instance, the importance of not lying about the product; however they tend to disagree about where the boundaries between acceptable and misleading information should be drawn in practice. The findings point to the fact that the differences might partly be explained by Boltanski and Thévenots' “orders of worth” and that this classification would seem to provide a fruitful tool for identifying the character and basis of differences of opinions regarding whether or not product information is deemed to be misleading and hence form the basis for a new tool in the management toolbox for testing potentially misleading information.Research limitations/implications – The data behind the analysis are limited and retrieved in a Danish environment, for which reason more research should be carried out in order to broaden the perspectives of the research.Practical implications – To reduce controversies the paper proposes a reciprocal recognition of the particular order of worth from which an assessment is made.

KW - Denmark

KW - Conventions Theory

KW - Communication Gap

KW - Misleading

KW - Controversy

KW - Advertising

KW - Product Information

KW - Consumer Behaviour

U2 - 10.1108/13522751211215859

DO - 10.1108/13522751211215859

M3 - Journal article

VL - 15

SP - 110

EP - 127

JO - Qualitative Market Research

JF - Qualitative Market Research

SN - 1352-2752

IS - 2

ER -