This paper offers an ontological response to the empirically observed U-shaped trajectory of consumer confidence, as mapped by Matt Rocklage, Jonah Berger, and Reihane Boghrati (2025). While their research highlights a robust pattern where confidence initially dips before exhibiting a steep rebound with increased experience, this paper reinterprets the accelerating late-stage confidence recovery. Building on Learnable Theory (Magni, Marchetti & Alharbi, 2023, 2024) and the principles of Generative Leadership of Meanings (Magni, Marchetti & Alharbi, forthcoming), I hypothesise that the steep rise in expert confidence is not merely a reflection of superior cognitive mastery. Rather, it results from a compounded dynamic: cognitive closure and systematic bias shaped by the internalisation of specialised linguistic frameworks—which come with “umbra cones”. Umbra cones are structured semantic blind spots—originally intentional occlusions that obscure alternative interpretations and reinforce dominant explanatory patterns. As experts master domain-specific vocabulary, grammar, and metaphorical systems, they enhance their ability to explain and predict within that framework. However, this same linguistic specialisation narrows their perceived cognitive horizon, reducing subjective uncertainty and driving a rapid, exponential-like increase in confidence. Notably, the exponential growth in certainty observed in the referenced study appears to corroborate this hypothesis. It suggests that expert confidence is not simply a function of accumulating objective knowledge but rather emerges from symbolic processes of meaning construction—anchored in linguistic constraints that systematically exclude competing perspectives.
The Confident Closure: Do Specialized Jargon and Umbra Cones Shape Consumer Certainty?
Author: Luca Magni
Affiliations: Luiss Business School – Rome, Italy
Abstract
This paper offers an ontological response to the empirically observed U-shaped trajectory of consumer confidence, as mapped by Matt Rocklage, Jonah Berger, and Reihane Boghrati (2025). While their research highlights a robust pattern where confidence initially dips before exhibiting a steep rebound with increased experience, this paper reinterprets the accelerating late-stage confidence recovery. Building on Learnable Theory (Magni, Marchetti & Alharbi, 2023, 2024) and the principles of Generative Leadership of Meanings (Magni, Marchetti & Alharbi, forthcoming), I hypothesize that the steep rise in expert confidence is not merely a reflection of superior cognitive mastery. Rather, it results from a compounded dynamic: cognitive closure and systematic bias shaped by the internalization of specialized linguistic frameworks—which come with “umbra cones.” Umbra cones are structured semantic blind spots—originally intentional occlusions that obscure alternative interpretations and reinforce dominant explanatory patterns. As experts master domain-specific vocabulary, grammar, and metaphorical systems, they enhance their ability to explain and predict within that framework. However, this same linguistic specialization narrows their perceived cognitive horizon, reducing subjective uncertainty and driving a rapid, exponential-like increase in confidence. Notably, the exponential growth in certainty observed in the referenced study appears to corroborate this hypothesis. It suggests that expert confidence is not simply a function of accumulating objective knowledge but rather emerges from symbolic processes of meaning construction—anchored in linguistic constraints that systematically exclude competing perspectives.
Keywords: Consumer Confidence, Metacognitive Recalibration, U-shaped Confidence, Learnable Theory, Umbra Cones, Specialized Jargon, Linguistic Containment, Cognitive Closure, Expertise, Generative Leadership of Meanings, Semantic Constraint, Ontological Explanation, Journal of Marketing Research
1. Introduction: Rethinking Consumer Confidence Through Ontology
The phenomenon of consumer confidence has long intrigued marketing scholars, particularly in its relationship to expertise and experience. Traditional models often assume a linear progression: as consumers gain experience, their confidence increases proportionally. However, recent empirical work by Rocklage, Berger, and Boghrati (2025) disrupts this assumption, revealing a U-shaped trajectory in consumer confidence. Their multi-method study, spanning domains such as wine, beer, and cosmetics, demonstrates that confidence initially starts high, dips during a phase of metacognitive recalibration, and then rebounds steeply as consumers become more experienced.
This paper offers a deep ontological critique and expansion of Rocklage et al.’s findings, drawing on the Theory of the Learnable and the principles of Generative Leadership of Meanings (GLM). I argue that the steep rebound in consumer confidence is not merely a reflection of cognitive mastery over external complexity, but rather a symbolic and linguistic construction of certainty. Specifically, I introduce the concept of umbra cones —semantic blind spots generated by specialized jargon and narrative fluency—which function as organized occlusions that reduce perceived uncertainty by limiting the cognitive horizon.
This ontological reframing suggests that the expert consumer’s confidence is not a transparent reflection of reality but a symbolic act of closure, achieved through the acquisition of a socio-symbolic scaffolding that filters, organizes, and ultimately constrains perception. As Aldous Huxley (1959) warned, language can become a “semantic prison,” affording clarity within its walls while ensuring ignorance of what lies beyond.
2. The Empirical Reality of the U-Shaped Confidence Curve
Rocklage et al. (2025) employ the Certainty Lexicon, a linguistic tool designed to quantify confidence based on the language used in consumer reviews. Their findings are robust across domains and methodologies. Consumers begin with relatively high confidence, which then dips as they encounter the limits of their knowledge. This dip corresponds to a phase of metacognitive recalibration, where consumers become aware of their ignorance and begin to explore alternative options. Interestingly, this phase is associated with increased switching behavior—consumers are more likely to try new genres or products when their confidence is low.
The most striking aspect of the study, in my view, is the steep rebound in confidence among highly experienced consumers. These individuals not only express high certainty but also demonstrate nuanced evaluations. Rocklage et al. interpret this as evidence of cognitive sophistication: experts possess frameworks that allow them to confidently place products within perceived complexity.
However, this interpretation raises a paradox: how can consumers be both highly confident and highly nuanced? If confidence reflects certainty and nuance reflects openness to complexity, how do these coexist? This paradox is the point of departure for our ontological critique.
3. Ontological Reframing: From Cognitive Mastery to Symbolic Closure
To resolve this paradox, I turn to the Learnable Enhanced Bhaskarian Ontology (LEBO), which integrates the Theory of the Learnable as a fourth stratum of reality. In this framework, reality is not merely physical or psychological—it is also symbolically constructed. Language is not a passive descriptor of reality; it is a generative force that shapes perception, action, and meaning.
Fleetwood (2005), in his critical realist approach to organizational studies, emphasizes that ontology must account for the structures that enable and constrain human action. In LEBO, these structures are linguistic. The expert consumer’s confidence is not simply a reflection of objective knowledge but a product of symbolic mastery —the ability to navigate a domain using specialized lexicon, grammar, metaphors, and narratives.
This symbolic mastery creates a predictable and contained reality, within which the consumer feels confident. However, it also generates umbra cones —areas of semantic occlusion where alternative interpretations are systematically excluded. These blind spots are not accidental; they are structurally enforced by the linguistic system itself.
4. Specialized Jargon and the Architecture of Certainty
The expert consumer’s confidence is built on a foundation of specialized linguistic competence, which includes:
- Lexicon and Naming: The use of domain-specific nouns (e.g., “retinol,” “dark fruit,” “tannin”) stabilizes fluid experiences into discrete, knowable objects. As Lakoff (1987) argues, categorization is not neutral—it reflects underlying conceptual metaphors and cultural frames.
- Grammar and Syntax: The structure of language encodes attentional mechanisms. Verbs introduce agency and dynamism; adjectives highlight or suppress features. Syntax enables logical expansion, allowing consumers to build coherent narratives around their experiences.
- Metaphors and Narratives: Conceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) organize experience by mapping abstract domains onto concrete ones. In wine tasting, for example, metaphors of journey, depth, and layering provide a framework for interpretation. Narrative fluency allows consumers to integrate new information into existing schemas, reinforcing confidence.
This linguistic architecture enhances explanatory power, which in turn supports confidence. But it also limits perception by defining what is relevant, what is visible, and what is thinkable.
5. The Umbra Cone: Semantic Blindness as a Feature, Not a Bug
The concept of the umbra cone is central to our ontological critique. An umbra cone is a semantic blind spot —a region of meaning that is systematically occluded by the linguistic system. It is not a failure of cognition but a feature of symbolic mastery.
- Definition: Umbra cones are organized occlusions, maintained by specialized jargon and narrative structures. They represent areas where meaning collapses into shadow—where alternative interpretations are not just ignored but rendered invisible.
- Function: These blind spots reduce subjective uncertainty by limiting the cognitive horizon. The consumer feels confident not because they understand everything, but because the linguistic system has filtered out ambiguity.
- Mechanism: The use of nominalization (turning processes into objects), prepositions (which direct and constrain attention), and metaphorical framing all contribute to the construction of umbra cones. As Marchetti (2023a) shows, prepositions have a double-attentional effect: they guide focus toward intended meanings while preventing awareness of alternatives.
This mechanism explains the steepness of the confidence rebound. As consumers acquire symbolic mastery, their perceptual field becomes more organized, more predictable, and more constrained. Confidence rises not because the world is simpler, but because the symbolic system has made it appear so.
6. Confidence as a Symbolic Act
Ultimately, I argue that consumer confidence is not a transparent reflection of reality but a symbolic act of closure. It is the outcome of a linguistic system that has successfully reduced complexity by organizing perception around stable categories, coherent narratives, and predictable structures.
This reframing has profound implications for marketing, consumer psychology, and leadership. It suggests that expertise is not just about knowing more—it is about knowing within a system that defines what counts as knowledge. As Wittgenstein (1953) famously noted, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.”
7. Specialized Jargon as a Cognitive Technology
The symbolic scaffolding that underpins expert confidence is not merely a linguistic convenience—it is a cognitive technology. As Ruthven (2019) notes, meaning-making in information interactions is not passive; it is an active construction mediated by language. In the context of consumer expertise, this construction is achieved through the acquisition of specialized jargon, which functions as a tool for organizing perception and action.
The process begins with naming. As Lakoff (1987) demonstrates, the act of naming is not neutral—it imposes a conceptual structure on experience. When a wine enthusiast describes a vintage as having “notes of blackberry and leather,” they are not merely reporting sensory data; they are invoking a shared symbolic framework that stabilizes the experience and makes it communicable. This stabilization is essential for confidence: it transforms the fluid and ambiguous into the discrete and knowable.
Next comes grammatical structuring. Formanowicz et al. (2017) show that verbs are powerful markers of agency. In consumer reviews, the shift from passive constructions (“was tasted”) to active ones (“I tasted”) reflects a reclaiming of agency and a reinforcement of confidence. Syntax, too, plays a role: the logical expansion enabled by coherent sentence structures allows consumers to build narratives that justify their evaluations.
Finally, metaphors and narratives provide the overarching architecture. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue that metaphors are not just linguistic flourishes—they are fundamental to thought. In the domain of cosmetics, for example, metaphors of transformation (“this serum is a miracle worker”) frame the product as an agent of change, reinforcing the consumer’s sense of control and certainty.
This triad—naming, grammar, and metaphor—constitutes a symbolic system that enhances explanatory power. But as we will see, it also imposes constraints.
8. The Umbra Cone: Semantic Occlusion as Confidence Amplifier
The concept of the umbra cone emerges from the recognition that symbolic systems do not merely illuminate—they also obscure. An umbra cone is a semantic blind spot, a region of meaning that is systematically excluded by the linguistic framework. It is not a failure of cognition but a structural feature of symbolic mastery.
This idea resonates with Aldous Huxley’s (1959) warning about “semantic prisons.” Huxley observed that people are often unable to think clearly about important subjects because their language does not permit it. In the context of consumer expertise, the specialized jargon that enables precise evaluation also prevents alternative interpretations. The wine connoisseur who confidently identifies “tannin structure” may be blind to cultural or emotional dimensions of taste that fall outside the oenological lexicon.
Umbra cones operate through several mechanisms:
- Nominalization: The transformation of processes into objects (e.g., “oxidation” becomes “oxidized”) reduces dynamism and reinforces stability. As Hansen and Wänke (2010) show, linguistic concreteness increases perceived truth. The more object-like a concept becomes, the more confidently it is held.
- Prepositional Framing: Marchetti (2023b) demonstrates that prepositions have a double-attentional effect: they guide attention toward intended meanings and simultaneously inhibit awareness of alternatives. In consumer language, phrases like “notes of vanilla in the finish” direct perception toward specific features while excluding others.
- Narrative Closure: Once a narrative is established (e.g., “this brand always delivers quality”), it becomes self-reinforcing. New experiences are interpreted through the lens of the existing story, and disconfirming evidence is either ignored or reinterpreted.
These mechanisms create a predictable symbolic reality, within which the consumer feels confident. The steepness of the confidence curve observed by Rocklage et al. (2025) is thus not a reflection of increased knowledge per se, but of increased symbolic containment.
9. Cognitive Rigidity and the Limits of Expertise
While symbolic mastery enhances confidence, it also introduces cognitive rigidity. The expert consumer becomes highly skilled at navigating a specific symbolic system but may struggle to adapt when that system is disrupted. This rigidity is not a flaw—it is a consequence of the very mechanisms that produce confidence.
Bryan et al. (2013) show that invoking the self in ethical decision-making increases consistency but reduces flexibility. Similarly, in consumer behavior, the internalization of a symbolic identity (“I am a wine expert”) reinforces confidence but narrows the range of acceptable interpretations. The consumer becomes less exploratory, less open to novelty, and more reliant on established schemas.
This rigidity has implications beyond individual behavior. In organizational contexts, symbolic containment can lead to strategic blindness. Fleetwood (2005) warns that ontological structures in management can constrain innovation by enforcing narrow definitions of reality. The same applies to consumer markets: brands that rely too heavily on established narratives may fail to recognize emerging trends or alternative value propositions.
10. Linguistic Exorcisms: Disrupting Symbolic Containment
If confidence is a product of symbolic containment, then uncertainty —and the potential for exploration—requires symbolic disruption. I call this process linguistic exorcism: the deliberate intervention in entrenched symbolic patterns to restore openness and flexibility.
Linguistic exorcisms can take several forms:
1. Juxtaposing Paradoxical Terms: Combining conflicting semantic fields (e.g., “controlled chaos,” “mandatory volunteering”) creates cognitive dissonance and forces new synthesis. Bryan et al. (2014) show that invoking paradoxes can increase helping behavior in children by shifting their interpretive frames.
2. Grammatical Re-profiling: Replacing passive constructions with active voice restores agency and disrupts habitual patterns. Formanowicz et al. (2021) demonstrate that verbs as markers of agency increase message effectiveness.
3. Metaphor Reframing: Substituting tired metaphors with generative ones (e.g., replacing “war on waste” with “garden of sustainability”) opens new interpretive possibilities. Lakoff (1993) emphasizes that metaphor choice shapes not only language but also thought itself.
These interventions are not merely rhetorical—they are ontological acts. They challenge the symbolic structures that define reality and open space for new meanings. In consumer contexts, they can restore curiosity, encourage exploration, and disrupt the rigidity of expertise.
11. Implications for Marketing and Leadership
The ontological reframing of consumer confidence has profound implications for marketing strategy and leadership. If confidence is a symbolic act, then influencing consumer behavior requires more than providing information—it requires shaping the symbolic environment.
Marketers must recognize that specialized jargon, while useful for segmentation and targeting, can also create semantic silos. Over-reliance on technical language may alienate novice consumers or obscure alternative value propositions. Brands should consider symbolic inclusivity: designing narratives and metaphors that invite diverse interpretations and encourage exploration.
Leaders, too, must be aware of the symbolic structures that shape organizational behavior. As Weick (1995) argues, sensemaking is a collective process mediated by language. Generative Leadership of Meanings (Magni, Marchetti & Alharbi, 2025) emphasizes the role of leaders in crafting symbolic environments that balance clarity with openness. This requires a deliberate management of umbra cones: recognizing where semantic occlusion occurs and intervening to restore visibility.
12. Expertise as Symbolic Containment
The ontological reframing proposed in this paper challenges the conventional understanding of expertise as a linear accumulation of knowledge. Instead, I argue that expertise—particularly in consumer contexts—is better understood as a symbolic containment of complexity. The steep trajectory of confidence observed by Rocklage et al. (2025) is not a reflection of objective mastery but of linguistic closure: the successful construction of a symbolic system that filters ambiguity and enforces predictability.
This insight has profound implications for how I interpret consumer behavior, design marketing strategies, and lead organizations. It suggests that the most confident consumers are not necessarily the most informed but the most linguistically equipped —those who have internalized a symbolic framework that renders the world legible, stable, and navigable.
But this stability comes at a cost. The umbra cone, as a metaphor for semantic occlusion, reminds us that every act of naming, every metaphor, every narrative, excludes as much as it includes. The expert consumer may be blind to alternative interpretations, emergent trends, or disruptive innovations—not because they lack intelligence, but because their symbolic system does not permit such visibility.
13. Toward a Generative Leadership of Meanings
The concept of Generative Leadership of Meanings (GLM), as developed by Magni, Marchetti, and Alharbi (2025), offers a pathway beyond symbolic rigidity. GLM emphasizes the leader’s role in curating symbolic environments that balance clarity with openness and stability with adaptability. In this framework, leadership is not merely about decision-making—it is about meaning-making.
GLM calls for leaders to become architects of symbolic possibility. This involves:
- Recognizing the umbra cones within their organizations and markets.
- Designing interventions (linguistic exorcisms) that disrupt entrenched narratives.
- Encouraging symbolic pluralism—multiple ways of seeing, naming, and interpreting reality.
Such leadership is particularly urgent in contexts of rapid change, where rigid symbolic systems can become liabilities. As Pérez Pedrola and Vitari (2020) argue, digital transformation requires affordance actualization —the ability to perceive and act upon new possibilities. This, in turn, depends on symbolic flexibility.
14. Closing Remarks: Confidence as Constructed Meaning
In closing, I return to the central insight of this paper: consumer confidence is a symbolic act. It is not a transparent reflection of reality but a constructed certainty, achieved through the acquisition of specialized linguistic systems that organize perception and constrain interpretation.
The steep rebound in confidence observed by Rocklage et al. (2025) is best understood as the success of a symbolic system —a system that reduces complexity by filtering ambiguity and enforcing coherence. This system provides explanatory power but also generates umbra cones: semantic blind spots that limit exploration and innovation.
To navigate this paradox, we must embrace an ontological perspective that sees language not as a mirror of reality but as a generator of meaning. We must recognize that every confident evaluation is also a closure of possibility and that true expertise requires not only mastery but also awareness of the limits of mastery.
As Wittgenstein (1953) reminds us, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” But perhaps, in the spirit of GLM, we might also say: whereof one cannot speak, one must learn to reframe.
References
- Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books.
- Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1001–1005.
- Bryan, C. J., Master, A., & Walton, G. M. (2014). Helping versus being a helper: Invoking the self to increase helping in young children. Child Development, 85(5), 1836–1842.
- Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspective. Organization, 12(2), 197–222.
- Formanowicz, M., Roessel, J., Suitner, C., & Maass, A. (2017). Verbs as linguistic markers of agency: The social side of grammar. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(5), 566–579.
- Formanowicz, M., Pietraszkiewicz, A., Roessel, J., Suitner, C., Witkowska, M., & Maass, A. (2021). Make it happen! Verbs as markers of agency increase message effectiveness. Social Psychology, 52(2), 75–89.
- Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1576–1586.
- Huxley, A. (1977). The Human Situation: Lectures at Santa Barbara, 1959. Edited by Piero Ferrucci. New York: Harper & Row.
- Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453–486.
- Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press.
- Magni, L., Marchetti, G., & Alharbi, A. (2023). Learnable Theory & Analysis. Rome: Luiss University Press.
- Magni, L., Marchetti, G., & Alharbi, A. (2024). Learnable Linguistics for Business Leaders. Open Research Books – Luiss Business School, Youcanprint
- Magni, L., Marchetti, G., & Alharbi, A. (2025). Generative Leadership of Meanings. Open Research Books – Luiss Business School, Youcanprint (under publication).
- Marchetti, G. (2023a). The linguistic and cognitive relevance of prepositions. In L. Magni, G. Marchetti, & A. Alharbi (Eds.), Learnable Theory & Analysis. Rome: Luiss University Press.
- Marchetti, G. (2023b). The cognitive operational meanings of prepositions and their leveraging in Learnable Analysis. In L. Magni, G. Marchetti, & A. Alharbi (Eds.), Learnable Theory & Analysis. Rome: Luiss University Press.
- Pérez Pedrola, A., & Vitari, C. (2020). Affordance actualization in digital transformation. Information Systems Journal, 30(5), 789–817.
- Rocklage, M. D., Berger, J., & Boghrati, R. (2025). EXPRESS: The Trajectory of Confidence: Experience, Certainty, and Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437251372928
- Ruthven, I. (2019). Making meaning: A focus for information interactions research.
- Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications.
- Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Macmillan.
[...]
Jetzt kaufen
- Arbeit zitieren
- Luca Magni (Autor:in), 2025, The Confident Closure: Do Specialised Jargon and Umbra Cones Shape Consumer Certainty?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1641955
