In this thesis we are concerned with developing formal and representational mechanisms for reasoning with inconsistent information. Strictly speaking there are two conceptually distinct senses in which we are interested in reasoning with inconsistent information. In one sense, we are interested in using logical deduction to draw inferences in a symbolic system. More specifically, we are interested in mechanisms that can continue to perform deduction in a reasonable manner despite the threat of inconsistencies as a direct result of errors or misrepresentations. So in this sense we are interested in inconsistency-tolerant or paraconsistent deduction. ¶ However, not every case of inconsistent description is a case of misrepresentation. In many practical situations, logically inconsistent descriptions may be deployed as representations for problems that are inherently conflicting. The issue of error or misrepresentation is irrelevant in these cases. Rather the main concern in these cases is to provide meaningful analyses of the underlying structure and properties of our logical representation which in turn informs us about the salient features of the problem under consideration. So in this second sense, we are interested in deploying logic as a representation to model situations involving conflict. ¶ In this thesis we adopt a novel framework to unify both logic-as-deduction and logic-as-representation approaches to reasoning with inconsistent information. From a preservational view point, we take deduction as a process by which metalogical properties are preserved from premises to conclusions. Thus methodologically we may begin by identifying inconsistency-tolerant deduction mechanisms and then investigate what additional properties of inconsistent premises are preserved by these mechanisms; or alternatively we may begin by identifying properties of inconsistent logical descriptions and investigate which deductive mechanisms can preserve these properties. We view these as two aspects of the same investigation. A key assumption in this work is that adequate analyses of inconsistencies require provisions to quantitatively measure and compare inconsistent logical representations. While paraconsistent logics have enjoyed considerable success in recent years, proper quantitative analysis of inconsistencies seems to have lapsed behind to some extent. In this thesis we’ll explore different ways in which we can compare and measure inconsistencies. We hope to show that both inference and analysis can fruitfully be brought to bear on the issue of inconsistency handling under the same methodological scheme.

Cognitive dissonance theory and selective information exposure literature postulate that individuals ignore preference-inconsistent information and selectively process new information. Previous studies on selective information exposure have shown that preference-inconsistent information is not persuasive for consumer decision making. Given the limited amount of past research about the effect of preference-inconsistent information on decision-making in broad domains of consumer behavior studies, the current study investigated how preference-inconsistent information can persuade consumers to switch to a sustainable product alternative. The purpose of this study is to investigate the process how preference-inconsistent sustainability-related information can be considered as important, consequently changing consumers' initial preference to green alternatives. A series of online experiments was conducted using a shampoo product category. Study 1 tested a baseline effect on whether consumers in the preference-inconsistent condition were persuaded to change their initial choice significantly compared to those in the preference-consistent condition. Study 2 tested the effect of preference-inconsistent sustainability-related information in the acceptance process, focusing on the role of brand commitment and information quality. Study 3 examined the effect of preference-inconsistent sustainability-related information in the evaluation process, investigating the impact of consumer environmental concern and PCE. Findings of Study 1 revealed that consumers in the preference-inconsistent condition were significantly persuaded to change choice to a sustainable alternative, which is not consistent with selective exposure literature. However, Study 1 findings were not sufficient to determine what specific factors influenced respondents to be persuaded, which provides justifications for Study 2 and Study 3. Findings in Study 2 and Study 3 conclusively demonstrated the importance of the credibility of preference-inconsistent information in the acceptance process. Also, findings suggested that the effect of credibility is stronger than that of brand commitment in the acceptance process. Regarding brand commitment, the results have shown that high commitment consumers had a higher acceptance of inconsistent information which is opposite to expectations. Further, the findings demonstrated the importance of environmental concern and the conditional effect of PCE in the evaluation process. Moreover, results supported that the relative weighting of sustainability attributes is driving the effects of environmental concern and PCE as a mediator on persuasion outcomes in the evaluation process. The current study contributes to understanding the process in which the preference-inconsistent information can be effective in influencing consumer choice. Moreover, findings from this research can provide implications for selective exposure literature and sustainable consumption literature. Practically, the results of the study provide implications to guide marketers and information providers in establishing effective ways to change consumers' behavior in sustainable consumption context.