The Conceptualization and Measurement
of Product Usage
S.Ram
University of Arizona
Hyung-Shik Jung
University of Arizona
The purpose of this research is to identify the key concep-
tual dimensions of product usage, and to develop reliable and
valid measures of product usage. Two different methods (a
self-report questionnaire and a diary study), two samples,
and four consumer durables have been used to develop the
measures of usage. The results suggest that usage frequency
and usage variety are two critical dimensions of product
usage, and that the measures developed in this study for each
dimension have high convergent and discriminant validity.
The study highlights the importance of investigating usage in
the post-purchase context, and helps to identify issues for
future research.
INTRODUCTION
Product usage, although an important facet of consumer
behavior, has been a relatively neglected construct in market-
ing research. Both the conceptualization of product usage and
the measurement of the construct have been inadequate. The
few attempts that have been made to develop measures of
usage have been product-specific: For example, usage has
been measured in the context of VCRs (Potter et al. 1988;
Harvey and Rothe 1986; Levy 1980, 1981) and personal
computers (Mentzer, Schuster and Roberts 1987; Dutton,
Kovaric, and Steinfield 1985). Further, the measurement has
been typically done using self-report questionnaires, and the
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Volume 18, Number 1, pages 67-76.
Copyright 9 1990 by Academy of Marketing Science.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN 0092-0703.
JAMS
validity of the measures has not been established. In this
study, we seek to address some of the major problems as-
sociated with the conceptualization and measurement of
product usage.
In the past, product usage has been typically studied in the
context of pre-purchase decision-making (Bettman and Park
1980; Johnson and Russo 1984; Srivastava, Shocker and Day
1978; Belk 1979; McAlister and Pessemier 1982), and sel-
dom in the context of post-purchase consumption. Even the
few studies in the post-purchase consumption context have
been descriptive in nature. For example, in the case of VCRs,
studies have examined how consumers' usage behavior, such
as time shifting, source shifting and zipping/zapping of com-
mercials, affects advertising effectiveness (Harvey and Rothe
1986; Metzger 1985). Dutton, Kovaric and Steinfield (1985)
have explored consumer usage of personal computers, and
suggested causes and effects of this usage behavior. Mentzer,
Schuster and Roberts (1987) have documented the extent of
computer usage by marketing professionals. Other studies
have investigated the effect of consumer psychological traits
such as involvement, use innovativeness, and expertise on
usage (Bloch 1981; Price and Ridgway 1983; Zaichkowsky
1985; Ram and Jung 1989). However, most of these studies
have been content with measuring usage patterns, and have
not explicitly conceptualized the dimensions of usage prior
to the measurement.
We seek to achieve three objectives in this article. First, we
will identify key dimensions of product usage that can be
generalized across several products. Second, we will develop
reliable and valid measures of product usage adopting two
different methods: Self-report questionnaires and diaries.
Finally, based on our conceptualization and measurement of
product usage, we will discuss issues worthy of future re-
search.
67 WINTER,1990
THECONCEP'I~AUZA~ON ANDMEASUREMENT
OFPRODUCTUSAGE
CONCEPTUALIZATIONOFPRODUCTUSAGE
In the marketing literature, the question of how consumers
use their products has been examined from three distinct
perspectives: Social Interaction perspective, Experiential
Consumption perspective, and Functional Utilization
perspective. The social interaction perspective deals with the
symbolic aspects of usage. It examines social meanings
attached to the consumption of intangible product attributes
in the case of socially conspicuous products such as
automobiles and houses (Belk et. al. 1983, Solomon 1983).
The experiential consumption perspective examines post-
purchase usage, especially consumer experiences such as
"fantasies, feelings, and fun" (Holbrook and Hirschman
1982). The focus of this research is on the hedonic consump-
tion of such products as entertainment and art. The functional
utilization perspective examines usage of product attributes
in different situations (Srivastava, Shocker and Day 1978;
McAlister and Pessemier 1982). The usage of durables, such
as personal computers and VCRs, are the focal point of this
perspective.
Of these three perspectives, the functional utilization
perspective has received little attention from marketing re-
searchers, especially in the context of post-purchase function-
al usage. It is this neglected perspective that we address to
develop our taxonomy of product usage.
Why has the functional utilization perspective been
neglected thus? Perhaps, due to an implicit assumption that
consumers are likely to use the features/functions of a product
soon after purchase, and there is little to be learned from
studying post-purchase consumption. While this assumption
may be valid for most consumer non-durables which tend to
offer little variety in functional usage, it is likely to be
erroneous in the case of durables, especially those based on
technological innovations.
Products such as personal computers offer multiple fea-
tures and functions. Consumers can use a combination of
these features/functlons, thus enjoying usage variety in the
form of different applications (word-processing, spreadsheet
analysis, computer games). Consumers can also create differ-
ent situations for each application: For example, spreadsheet
analysis can be used for home budgeting, tax accounting,
school assignments, office work, simple calculations etc.
Usage variety derives simultaneously from the product fea-
tures as well as the usage situations. These two aspects of
usage variety are inter-related, and their relative contribution
to usage variety may vary across product categories, hence it
seems appropriate to consider both these aspects con-
comitantly.
In this article, we propose two dimensions of product
usage: usage frequency and usage variety. The definitions of
these two dimensions are provided as follows.
Usage Frequency
Usage frequency refers to how often the product is used
(usage time), regardless of the different applications for
which the product is used.
JAMS
RAM ANDJUNG
Usage Variety
Usage variety refers to the different applications for which
a product is used, and the different situations in which a
product is used, regardless of how frequently it is used.
The differences between these two dimensions can be
illustrated with an example. Consider the case of two con-
sumers who own a VCR. Both use the VCR for two hours
every day; the first consumer uses the VCR for just viewing
rented tapes; the second consumer uses the VCR for record-
ing TV programs (to watch later), for viewing rented tapes,
for viewing home movies made with a camcorder, for pre-
programmed recording etc. Both have identical usage fre-
quency, but the second consumer has a higher usage variety.
These two dimensions of usage can be contrasted on
several characteristics. First, usage frequency may be driven
predominantly by task requirements of the consumer, while
usage variety depends on both the variety in features offered
by the product and the variety of usage situations. Second,
there are likely to be temporal variations in the two dimen-
sions: Usage frequency may be high immediately following
purchase, while increase in usage variety may depend on how
soon the consumer acquires the required knowledge/skill to
use the different product features. Third, the two dimensions
can be considered manifestations of different types of con-
sumer needs: Usage frequency may correspond with
routinized needs (narrow range of heavy use), while usage
variety may correspond with the variety-seeking need (wide
range of light use). Finally, an increase in usage variety
(rather than usage frequency) is likely to have a positive
impact on the market development for the product. For in-
stance, the higher the technical sophistication of a product,
the greater the number of potential uses it can offer. This is
likely to attract consumers with different usage needs and
increase the diffusion potential of the product (Gatignon and
Robertson 1985). Thus, the proposed conceptualization of
product usage can not only provide descriptive usage pat-
terns, but also give insights into the dynamics of usage shifts
over time, consumer need patterns, consumer skill levels, and
likely product-market development.
The proposed conceptualization of usage is also consistent
with those suggested in the marketing literature. For example,
usage frequency and usage variety are analogous to the depth
of usage and width of usage suggested by Gatignon and
Robertson (1985) in the innovation diffusion literature. They
refer to width of usage as "the number of people within the
adoption unit who use the product or the number of different
uses for the product" and to depth of usage as "the amount
of usage or the purchase of related products." The definition
provided by Gatignon and Robertson (1985), however,
focuses on product usage at the aggregate (or macro) level in
the context of innovation diffusion; we focus on the usage of
consumer durables at the individual (or micro) level.
Zaichkowsky (1985) similarly discusses two aspects of
product usage--depth of consumption, and, breadth of con-
sumption--and how they are related to the constructs of
involvement and expertise. Zaichkowsky's (1988) definition
68 WINTER, 1990
TIIE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT RAM AND JUNG
OF PRODUCT USAGE

of depth of consumption is consistent with our definition of
usage frequency. However, she defines breadth of consump-
tion as the number of different types/brands of products
owned/used in a product class within a given time frame,
while we define usage variety as the different types of uses
of a product. This is because Zaichkowsky (1988) studies the
influence of expertise and involvement on usage at the prod-
uct class level, whereas our conceptualization of usage is
product-specific and in the context of consumer durables
which offer more features and are likely to have lower re-
placement rates.
Dutton, Kovaric, and Steinfield (1985) also identify two
similar dimensions in the context of personal computers:
amount of usage (regular/irregular vs. light/heavy), and vari-
ety in usage (low vs. high). They do not, however, extend the
taxonomy to other product classes, nor do they attempt to
empirically validate the dimensions.
In summary, the proposed conceptualization of product
usage builds on existing theoretical frameworks, and contrib-
utes to the understanding of post-purchase consumption es-
pecially in the context of consumer durables.
MEASUREMENT OF PRODUCT USAGE: SELF-
REPORT versus DIARY
In some of the earlier studies which measure product usage,
several problems exist: (1) usage patterns, rather than usage
dimensions, have been measured (Dutton, Kovaric and Stein-
feld 1985); (2) the reliability and validity of usage measures
developed through self-report questionnaires has not been
established (Harvey and Rothe 1986; Potter et al. 1988); and,
(3) when diary studies have been used to develop measures
of usage, the diaries were typically for very short time periods
(Levy 1980, 1981). This raises two important questions: First,
how can reliable, valid measures of usage be developed?
Second, since product usage may vary over time, which
measurement method is more effective: self-report question-
naires (cross-sectional), or usage diaries (longitudinal)?
There have been some attempts to compare the accuracy
of data collected from self-reports and diaries in the purchase
context (Wind and Lerner 1979; Stanton and Tucci 1982;
Sudman 1964a, 1964b), but little empirical evidence is avail-
able on the relative accuracy of the two methods in the usage
context. In the purchase context, self-reports were found to
suffer from biases such as forgetting, ambiguous questioning,
reporting errors, deliberate falsification, and interviewer bias
(Wind and Lemer 1979), and these biases are likely to exist
in the usage context as well. There is yet another problem in
using self-reports to measure usage: Unlike purchase which
is a discrete event, usage is a continuous event which may
change over the length of ownership of the product. So it may
be difficult for respondents to record the exact amount of
usage in a cross-sectional study.
In the purchase context, diary data provided a more ac-
curate estimate of the "true" purchases of frequently pur-
chased products (Wind and Lerner 1979). The accuracy of the
purchase estimate could be determined by comparing the
survey data against a readily available reference point: ag-
gregate brand share. But, in the usage context, no such refer-
ence point is readily available for comparison. Further, using
diaries to record usage is subject to certain limitations:
1. Regular recording of the diary over a long period
of time is extremely tedious and requires consider-
able amount of effort and sincerity on the part of
the respondent.
2. The respondent who maintains the diary may not
be able to provide an accurate report of usage by
other members of the household.
3. Respondents may have to be sensitized to the
difference between usage frequency and usage va-
riety, if data on both dimensions needs to be
recorded by them.
Thus, the question of which method is more accurate for
the measurement of product usage is still unanswered in the
literature, and we will seek an answer in this study.

TABLE 1
Measurement of Product Usage: Self-Report
1. Usage Frequency
Past UsageFrequency
On an average, how often have you used this product since you bought it?
1: more than once a day 2: once a day 3: a few times a week 4: once a week 5: once a month 6: less than once a month
Present UsageFrequency
At present, how often do you use this product?
1: more than once a day 2: once a day 3: a few times a week 4: once a week 5: once a month 6: less than once a month
2. Usage Variety (Feature Usage)
UsageAfter Acquisition
What fraction of the total features (function keys) of your product did you try immediately after acquiring it?
1: all of them 2: most of them 3: about half of them 4: a little less than a half 5: a few of them 6: very few
Accumulated Usage
What fraction of the total features (function keys) of your product have you used since you acquired it?
1: all of them 2: most of them 3: about half of them 4: a little less than a half 5: a few of them 6: very few

JAMS 69 WINTER, 1990

TIlE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT RAM AND JUNG
OF PRODUCT USAGE

METHOD
A judgmental sample of 471 households in a southwestern
metropolitan city in the United States was chosen for the
study. Each household was used for collecting data on one of
four consumer durables: VCR, Personal Computer,
Microwave Oven, and Food Processor. A key respondent was
chosen in each household to participate in the study. The
respondent was typically the male or female head of
household, and had been involved in the purchase of the
product, and was currently one of the primary users of the
product, t
123 households reported on the usage of VCRs (53 percent
male, mean age = 31.8 years, 52 percent with college educa-
tion, median income = $31,000); 116 households reported on
personal computers (65 percent male, mean age = 31.1 years,
53 percent with college education, median income =
$29,000); 116 households reported on microwave ovens (40
percent male, mean age = 31.5 years, 43 percent with college
education, median income = $24,000); and 116 households
reported on food processors (15 percent male, mean age =
35.2 years, 48 percent with college education, median income
= $32,500).
Care was taken to ascertain when the households had
acquired the product, and which households had acquired the
product as a gift.
A multi-trait multi-method procedure was adopted to de-
velop reliable, valid measures of usage (Campbell and Fiske
1959). Two different methods--a questionnaire and a diary--
were used to measure product usage of each respondent.
Self-report Measures
The self-report was used to obtain the following measures
of usage: usage frequency (past, present), and usage variety
(at the time of purchase, and accumulated usage variety since

TABLE 2
Measurement of Usage Variety: Diary Data
VCR avg. use days PERSONAL COMPUTER avg. use days
1. Movie rental 3.96 1. Word processing 7.15
(3.71) (6.86)
2. Recording a TV show (to watch later) 4.18 2. Spread sheets 2.41
(4.67) (5.40)
3. Recording a TV show while watching other 0.27 3. Computer games 1.80
(1.05) (2.89)
4. Watching a previously recorded program 2.73 4. Bookkepping 0.12
(3.84) (0.44)
5. Slow motion picture 0.03 5. Graphics 0.35
(0.22) (1.04)
6. Connecting to camera 0.03 6. Pdnting 0.04
(0.17) (0.20)
7. Pre-programmedrecording 0.46 7. Communication(modem) 1.11
(1.64) (3.25)
8. Recording & watching the program on the same day 1.70 8. Computer language 1.21
(3.98) (3.01)
9. Combined use of multiple functions 1.17 9. Combined use ofmuhiple functions 1.18
(3.85) (3.62)

MICROWAVE OVEN Avg. use days FOOD PROCESSOR Avg. use days
1. Heating previously cooked food 11.40 1. Blending/mixing (e.g. combining butter and flour) 1.44
(6.45) (4.04)
2. Defrosting food e.g. frozen meat) 1.58 2. Grating/grinding (e.g. grating cheese for pizza) 0.92
(1.89) (1.45)
3. Boiling water (e.g. for a cup of coffee) 2.07 3. Chopping (e.g. chopping onions for soup) 1.62
(3.28) (1.78)
4. Cooking food 2.61 4. Slicing (e.g. slicing cucumber for salad) 1.05
(3.10) (1.55)
5. Using for frozen packaged food (e.g. TV dinner) 2.27 5. Shredding (e.g. shredding cabbage for coleslaw) 1.12
(3.11) (1.49)
6. Setting a timer for delayed cooking 0.11 6. Mincing (e.g. mincing garlic) 0.21
(0.63) (0.61)
7. Inserting a temperature probe cable 0.It 7. Puree 0.09
(0.50) (0.33)
8. Hold or keep warm features 0.02 8. Kneading (e.g. kneeding dough) 0.24
(0.20) (0.67)
9. Combined use of multiple functions 4.01 9. Combined use of multiple functions 1.03
(6.58) (1.91)
Note: Figures in parantheses are standard deviations.

JAMS 70 WINTER, 1990

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT RAM AND JUNG
OF PRODUCT USAGE

TABLE 3
Validity of Measures of Usage Frequency and Usage Variety:
Self-Report vs. Diary Data
(Self-Report) (Self-Report)
Measures of Usage Frequency Measures of Usage Variety
Usage Number
days of uses
Usage # of Respondents (diary) Usage # of Respondents (diary)
Freq. in category Max: 42 Variety in category Max: 9
VCR (n=123)
> Once a day 6 24.7 All features 48 2.9
Daily 13 21.2 Most features 40 2.8
> Weekly 61 13.5 About half 13 2.4
Weekly 34 8.5 <half 5 3.1
Monthly 7 5.1 A few 12 3.0
< Monthly 2 14.0 Very few 5 0.9
mean 13.0 mean 2.8

Personal Computer (n=116)

> Once a day 23 18.3 All features 42 3.1
Daily 14 17.9 Most features 44 2.0
> weekly 52 12.6 About half 15 2.5
Weekly 14 5.7 < Half 6 1.4
Monthly 4 13.0 A few 6 2.6
< Monthly 9 6.3 Very few 2 2.0
mean 13.1 mean 2.5

Microwave Oven (n=116)

> Once a day 41 25.4 All features 43 3.8
Daily 37 24.4 Most features 35 3.7
> Weekly 32 18.4 About half 10 3.5
Weekly 4 17.5 < Half 9 3.9
Monthly 2 9.5 A few 12 3.6
< Monthly 0 0 Very few 6 3.1
mean 22.6 mean 3.7

Food Processor (n = 116)

> Once a day 0 0 All features 50 2.9
Daily 3 12.3 Most features 24 1.8
> weekly 33 7.5 About half 6 2.7
weekly 30 6.8 < Half 7 2.5
Monthly 28 4.0 A few 17 1.1
< Monthly 21 0.2 Very few 9 1.5
m~all 5.3 mean 2.2

the time of purchase). A list of these measures is provided in
Table 1.2
The self-report was also used to obtain the following infor-
mation: (1) whether the product was purchased or acquired
as a gift, (2) whether the product was new or used at the time
of acquisition, (3) the date of purchase/acquisition, (4) per-
ceived situational usage, (5) perceived operational skill of the
user, and (6) demographic information.
Diary Measures
The diary was designed to collect the following informa-
tion regarding product usage: the specific purpose for which
the product was being used, the usage situations, the exact
time and date of usage, the length of time for which the
product was used in each case, and which family member(s)
had used it. Prior to the time of diary administration, the
respondents were trained by the interviewer on how to fill out
the diary. They were provided specific examples of product
usage to illustrate the differences between usage variety and
usage frequency. The respondents then used an open-ended
format to record usage data.
Usage Frequency
From the diary, the following measures of usage frequency
were obtained for each day: the length of time for which the
product was used each time, the total number of usage oc-
casions, and the total usage frequency (summated product of
u~age occasions x length of time for each occasion).
Usage Variety
The usage variety measure was tailor-made for each prod-

JAMS 71 WINTER, 1990

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT RAM AND JUNG
OF PRODUCT USAGE

TABLE 4
Relationship between Feature Usage, Situational
Usage, and Operational Skill
Microwave Food
VCR PC Oven Processor
Feature usage .30 .13" .28 .29
& skill
Situational .33 .30 .30 .41
usage & skill
feature usage .50 .50 .49 .60
& situational
usage
Figures in tables are Pearson correlations.
a:p<0.10
All other correlations are significant at p < 0.001 level.
uct. The development of usage variety measures required the
categorization of the different usage patterns, based on the
subjects' diaries (See Table 2). The total usage variety score
for each respondent was derived from both the different
number of product features/functions used, and the number
of different situations in which the product was used.
Study Design
Prior to the data collection, the sample (for each product)
was randomly divided into two equal parts. At the start of the
study, the questionnaire was administered to one half of the
sample. Two weeks later, all respondents were given diaries
and asked to record their product usage as and when it
occurred. The diary study was conducted for a period of six
weeks (42 days). The diaries were collected from the respon-
dents every two weeks. After the diary study, the question-
naire (self-report) was administered to the other half of the
sample. This before-after design was used to control for any
testing effect.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A comparison was made between the usage frequency and
usage variety of the two groups of respondents who filled out
the self-report at the start of the diary study, and at the end of
the diary study. No differences in usage patterns were found,
suggesting that there was no testing effect from the diary
administration.
For each of the products, an analysis was done to see if any
of the demographic characteristics (age, sex, income, and
education) would influence usage frequency and usage vari-
ety. None of the demographic characteristics was found to
have significant effects on either dimension of usage.
Validity of Usage measures
The correlations between the self-report measures and
diary measures of usage frequency ranged between 0.38
(Microwave oven) and 0.46 (VCR), and were statistically
significant (p < 0.01). The correlations between the self-
report measures and diary measures of usage variety ranged
TABLE 5
Correlations between Past Usage and Present
Usage
Microwave Food
VCR PC Oven Processor
Usage .86 .86 .80 .86
frequency
Usage .75 .58 .52 .65
varlet),,
Figures in tables are Pearson correlations.
All correlations are significant at p < 0.001 level.
between 0.08 (Microwave oven) and 0.31 (food processor),
and were statistically significant in all cases except that of
microwave oven (p < 0.01). Thus, the usage measures have
convergent validity.
The correlations between the diary measure of usage vari-
ety and the self-report measure of usage variety were higher
than (1) the correlation between the diary measures of usage
variety and usage frequency, and (2) the correlation between
the self-report measures of usage variety and usage frequen-
cy. These results provide evidence for the discriminant
validity of the usage variety measure (Campbell and Fiske
1959), and similar results were found in the case of the usage
frequency measure.
A comparison was made between the diary usage of the six
categories into which respondents classified themselves in the
self-report (See Table 3). The usage frequency and usage
variety scores from the diary were consistent with the self-
report classifications: For example, people who had the high-
est usage frequency (or variety) had classified themselves into
the highest frequency (or variety) categories in the self-report.
The variety in functional/feature usage was highly corre-
lated with situational usage (Table 4). This is consistent with
the view that the more the product is used in a wide variety
of occasions or situations, the more the functional/feature
usage that may be needed.
Further, the operational skill of the consumer was also
found to be positively related to the functional/feature usage
and situational usage (Table 4).
Stability of Usage Frequency and Usage Variety
An important research question is how long should one
observe the respondents' usage behavior to obtain a fairly
good estimate of their usage degree. In the self-report, respon-
dents were asked about their past and present usage frequen-
cy, and about usage variety at the time of purchase as well as
accumulated usage variety since purchase. The correlations
between past and present usage frequency, and past and
cumulative usage variety are fairly high, across all four
products (see Table 5). The results suggest that the usage in
the early periods following purchase has a significant impact
on usage in the long-run.
The relationship between length of product ownership and
product usage (usage frequency and usage variety) was inves-
tigated. The analysis was conducted by classifying respon-
dents into two groups---one group, which had owned the

JAMS 72 WINTER, 1990

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT RAM AND JUNG
OF PRODUCT USAGE

TABLE 6
VCR Usage: Diary vs. Self-Report
(Second Sample)
Diary , Self-Report ,
(n = 123) (n = 44)
# of usage days Don't Never Not usage freq.
max. 42 days know used ava times~month
Watching 3.96 7.60
rented tapes (3.71) -- -- -- (7.61)
Recording programs 4.18 2.2% 24.4% 2.2% 3.79
for watching later (4.67) (5.26)
Recording other program(s) 0,27 6.8% 44.4% 4.5% 1.36
while watching one (1.05) (2.84)
Watching program(s) 2.73 13.6% 18.2% -- 3.07
recorded earlier (3.84) (4.30)
Slow motion 0.03 9.1% 36.4% 36.4% 2.50
picture (0.22) (14.91)
Using along with 0.03 11.4% 56.8% 22.7% 0
camera (0.17) (0)
Preprogrammed 0.46 20.5% 34.1% 2.3% 1.61
recording (1.64) (3.77)
Using with another -- 9.1% 40.9% 9.1% 1.83
VCR to copy tapes (5.08)
Search/Scan -- 11.4% 13.6% 22.7% 9.30
(19.43)
Tape memory/memory -- 37.2% 25.6% 20.9% 0.28
back-up (0.98)
Note: Table values are mean scores. Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

TABLE 7
Microwave Oven Usage: Diary vs. Self-Report
(Second Sample)
Diary ' Self-Report --
(n = 116) (n = 34)
# of usage days Don't Never Not usage freq.
max." 42 days know used ava times~month
Heating previously 11.40 2.9% 2.9% -- 39.94
cooked food (6.45) (33.63)
Defrosting food 1.58 5.9% 2.9% -- 12.46
(1.89) (17.55)
Boiling water 2.07 5.9% 26.5% -- 9.42
(3.28) (18.20)
Cooking food 2.61 2.9% 8.8% -- 25.60
(3.10) (31.45)
Frozen packaged 2.27 5.9% 35.3% 5.9% 4.68
food (TV dinner) (3.11) (7.98)
Setting time for 0.11 17.6% 38.2% 14.7% 3.62
delayed cooking (0.63) (16.95)
Inseaing temperature 0.11 11.8% 50.0% 11.8% 0.41
probe (1.50) (1.13)
Hold or keep 0.02 14.7% 29.4% -- 8.18
food hot (0.20) (18.13)
Programmed cooking 17.6% 35.3% 17.6% 5.00
(16.19)
Note: Table values are mean scores. Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.

JAMS 73 WINTER, 1990

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT
OF PRODUCT USAGE
product for three months or less, and a second group which
had owned the product for more than three months. No
differences in usage were found between the two groups,
suggesting that usage frequency and usage variety stabilized
in a fairly short period. Hence, the six weeks period (for which
the diary was maintained in this study) seems adequate to
measure respondents' usage for the test of convergent
validity.
Accuracy of Diary-report: Analysis with a second
sample
One of the possible problems with the diary was that the
respondents might not have recorded all their usage, espe-
cially if they considered certain aspects of their usage as
trivial (e.g. slow motion picture usage in a VCR, boiling a cup
of water with a microwave oven). To check for this possible
under-reporting, we used a new sample for two products -
VCR (44 respondents) and microwave oven (34 respondents).
These respondents were provided with a specific list of usage
applications and situations for each product (as shown in
Table 1), and asked about the usage frequency in the case of
each application/situation. The respondents could also indi-
cate if they were not aware of a feature, or if their product did
not have the feature, or if they had never used their product
for a specific application.
The two samples were found similar in their product
ownership characteristics and demographic characteristics,
hence the results of the two samples could be compared
meaningfully. No differences were found in the degree of
product usage (self-report and diary-report) based on the
length of product ownership, mode of product acquisition
(purchase vs. gift), type of product acquisition (purchased
new vs. used), and demographic characteristics. The rank
order of usage scores in the self-report seemed consistent with
those from the diary, though the actual values were higher in
the self-report than the diary. However, a significant number
of respondents reported that they had not used or were not
aware of several special features in their products (for ex-
ample, the pre-programmed recording feature of the VCR)
[See Tables 6, 7].
LIMITATIONS
The correlations between usage variety measures in the
self-report and diary were relatively small in magnitude, and
this could have been due to several reasons: (1) the measure
for usage variety in the self-report included only function-
al/feature usage (omitting situational usage); (2) the usage
variety scores in the self-reports were skewed towards" used
most or all of available functions/features", while the diary
measure did not bear this out; either the respondents were not
aware of all available features/functions (resulting in over-
reporting), or the diary respondents did not report all instances
of usage (resulting in under-reporting); and, (3) the diaries
were maintained for only six weeks, a period that might be
inadequate to reflect general usage patterns for some
products. Future studies need to address some of these poten-
tial concerns.
JAMS
RAM AND JUNG
The products employed in this study were home applian-
ces. Other products are needed to test the generalizability of
usage dimensions suggested in this study.
The sample design and sample recruiting techniques
employed in this study could be improved. Because of the
nature of the product usage, more female respondents were
used for two products: Microwave oven and food processor.
CONTRIBUTIONS OFTHERESEARCH
In this study, we have identified two key conceptual dimen-
sions of usage which can be generalized across product
classes: usage frequency and usage variety. This is a sig-
nificant improvement over past studies on usage which have
been typically descriptive in nature.
We have also developed reliable, valid measures of usage
by employing (1) two methods (self-report, diary), (2) two
different samples, and (3) four different products. The study
suggests that a systematically designed self-report can pro-
vide reliable, valid measures of usage, and could also save the
considerable time and effort needed to obtain diary measures.
A preliminary diary study, however, can help identify the
usage patterns for a product, and these patterns can be used
to develop the usage variety measures for a self-report ques-
tionnaire.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Theoretical Issues
The causes and effects of product usage have been inade-
quately studied, and represent a rich area for future research.
The impact on usage of consumer-related factors such as
social status and personality traits, and other factors such as
the socio-cultural setting and product features, needs to be
explored.
The degree of product usage can influence the level of
consumer satisfaction with a product. If a consumer bought a
product expecting to use it frequently or in a variety of ways,
but actual usage fell short of expectations, the resulting usage
disconfirmation may result in dissatisfaction. Whereas the
traditional disconfirmation paradigm examines the role of
product performance on satisfaction, the impact of product
usage on satisfaction has not been investigated and is thus an
issue worthy of future research.
Managerial Implications
Usage frequency and usage variety, the two dimensions of
product usage, can be used as the basis for segmenting prod-
uct markets. For example, Potter, Forrest, Sapolsky, and Ware
(1988) attempt to identify the profiles of five usage segments
for VCRs. The usage segments were classified with respect
to the degree of time-shifting and source-shifting usage be-
haviors.
Usage also has important implications for product design
and the communication of product information to the con-
sumer. This study showed that a surprisingly small number
74 WINTER, 1990
THE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT
OF PRODUCT USAGE
of respondents reported the usage of VCR features such as
"recording a TV show while watching later","slow motion
picture", and"pre-programmed recording", and microwave
oven features such as "use of timer", and "use of tempera-
ture probe". Many of the respondents were not even aware
of these features. Yet, these types of product features are
heavily advertised and often serve as the basis of differ-
entiation between models. This suggests that manufacturers
should not be content with designing sophisticated features
for their products. They need to facilitate consumer usage of
these features by designing user-friendly manuals or informa-
tive store displays. While increased degree of product usage
could generate a higher level of satisfaction, inability to use
the sophisticated features and functions could lead to frustra-
tion and dissatisfaction.
NOTES
1. Metzger (1985) argues that for products which can be used by
several members of a household, a respondent must be randomly
selected from within the household to measure usage. However,
in this study, we designated a primary respondent within each
household for an important reason: microwave ovens and food
processors were most frequently used by female heads of
households, while personal computers were not often used by
all members of a household.
2. A follow-up study was used to determine what time periods
respondents used to report on " p a s t " usage, respondents used
an average time period of 31 months (microwave oven), 30
months (VCR), and 19 months (personal computer). In report-
ing " p r e s e n t " usage, they used an average of 5 months
(microwave ovens), 3 months (both VCR and personal com-
puter).
REFERENCES
Belk, Russell W. 1979. "A Free Response Approach to Developing Product-
Specific Consumption Situation Taxonomies." In AnalyticalApproaches
to Product and Marketing Planning. Ed. Allan D. Shocker. Cambridge,
MA: Marketing Science Institute. 177-196.
, Kenneth D. Bahn, and Robert N. Mayer. 1982. "Developmental
Recognition of Consumption Symbolism." Journal of Consumer Re-
search. 9 (June): 4-17.
Beuman, James R. and C. Whan Park. 1980. "The Effects of Prior Knowl-
edge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer
Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis." Journal of Consumer Re-
search9 7 (December): 234-248.
Bloch, Peter tl. 1981. "An Exploration into the Scaling of Consumers'
Involvement with a Product Class." In Advances in Consumer Research.
Ed. Kent B. Monroe. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
8: 61--65.
Dutton, William, Peter Kovaric, and Charles Steinfield. 1985. "Computing
in the ltome: A Research Paradigm." Computers and the Social Sciences.
1:5-18.
Gatignon, llubert and Thomas S. Robertson. 1985. "A Propositional Inven-
tory for New Diffusion Research9 Journal of Consumer Research. 11
(March): 849-867.
Harvey, M. G., and J. T. Rothe. 1986. "Video Cassette Recorders: Their
Impact on Viewers and Advertisers." Journal of Advertising Research.
25(6): 19-27.
Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. 1982. "The F.xperiential
Aspects of Consumer Behavior: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun."
Journal of Consumer Research9 9 (September): 132-140.
Johnson, Eric J. and J. Edward Russo. 1984. "Product Familiarity and
JAMS
RAM AND JUNG
Leaming New Information". Journal of Consumer Research. l 1 (June):
542-550.
Levy, M. R. 1980. "ltome video Recorders: A User Study." Journal of
Broadcasting. 24 (3): 327-336.
- - 19819 "tIome Video Recorders and Time Shifting." Journalism
Quarterly. 580): 401-405.
McAlister, Leigh and Edgar Pessemier. 19829 "Variety Seeking Behavior:
An Interdisciplinary Review." Journal of Consumer Research. 9
(December): 311-3229
Mentzer, John T., Camille P. Schuster, and David J. Roberts. 1987.
"Microcomputer versus Mainframe Usage by Marketing Professionals".
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 15 (Summer): 1-9.
Metzger, G. 1986. "Comtam's VCR Research." Journal of Advertising
Research. 26 (2): RC8-12.
Potter, S. James, Edward Forrest, Barry S. Sapolsky, and William Ware. 1988.
"Segmenting VCR Owners9 Journal of Advertising Research. 28(2):
29-39.
Price, Linda L. and Nancy M. Ridgway. 1983. "Development of a Scale to
Measure Use Innovativeness." In Advances in Consumer Research. Eds.
Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for
Consumer Research. 10: 679~584.
Ram, S. and ttyung-Shik Jung. 1989. "The Link Between Involvement, Use
Innovafiveness and Product Usage." In Advances in Consumer Research.
Ed. Thomas K. Srull. tlawaii: Association for Consumer Research, 16:
160-166.
Solomon, Michael R. 1983. "The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A
Symbolic Interactionism Perspective9 Journal of Consumer Research.
10 (Dec): 319-329.
Srivastava, Rajendra K., Allan D. Shocker, and George S. Day. 1978. "An
Exploratory Study of the Influences of Usage Situation on Perceptions of
Product Markets." Advances in Consumer Research. Ed. Keith Hunt.
Chicago: Association for Consumer Research. 5: 32-37.
Stanton, John L. and Louis A. Tucci. 1982. "The Measurement of Consump-
tion: A Comparison of Surveys and Diaries." Journal of Marketing
Research. 14 (May): 274-277.
Sudman, Seymour. 1964a. "On the Accuracy of Recording of Consumer
Panels: I." Journal of Marketing Research. 1 (May): 14-20.
9 1964b. "On the Accuracy of Recording of Consumer Panels: II."
Journal of Marketing Research. 1 (August): 69-83.
Wind, Yoram and D. l.emer. 1979. "On the Measurement of Purchase Data:
Surveys Versus Purchase Diaries." Journal of Marketing Research. 16
(February): 39--47.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne. 1985. "Familiarity: Product Use, Involvement
or Expertise?" In Advances in Consumer Research. Eds. Elizabeth C.
ttirschman and Morris B. Holbrook. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 12: 296-299.
- - (1988). "What is Familiarity?" Working Paper. Simon Fraser
University.
ABOUTTHEAUTHORS
Dr. S. RAM is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Uni-
versity of Arizona, Tucson. He received his Ph.D in Business
Administration from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, MBA from the Indian Institute of Management,
Calcutta, and B.Tech. in Engineering from the Indian Institute
of Technology, Madras. Ram's research projects focus on
managing customer and corporate resistance to innovations,
designing expert systems for screening new products, and
studying how consumers use hi-tech products and innovative
durables. His publications have appeared in several journals
such as Applied Artificial Intelligence, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, and, Journal of Consumer Market-
ing, and in Advances in Consumer Research, and AMA
Conference Proceedings. He has co-authored a book (with
Jagdish N. Sheth) titled Bringing Innovation to Market: How
to Break Corporate and Customer Barriers (New York:
Wiley & Sons Inc., 1987).
75 WINTER, 1990
THE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT RAM AND JUNG
OF PRODUCT USAGE

HYUNG-SHIK JUNG is a Doctoral Student in Marketing at processing, brand extension and product usage. His publica-
the University of Arizona, Tucson. He received his MBA tions have appeared in Advances in Consumer Research,
from the Ohio University, Athens. His research interests are AMA Conference Proceedings, and Developments in Market-
in the areas of consumer satisfaction, consumer information ing Science.

JAMS 76 WINTER, 1990