“Am I Getting It or Not?” The Practices Involved in “Trying to Consume” a New Technology

In recent years, high rates of failure of technology-based products have spurred interest in understanding the psychological and sociological barriers to consumer learning of technological innovations. The main focus of this research was to examine the learning process and consumers’ coping mechanisms when they encounter technological innovations. A study was designed to understand the learning process in real time as consumers engaged in a set of activities associated with the novel interface. The goal was to investigate how consumers cope with high levels of complexity during their initial interactions with a technology-based product and how their coping strategies may hinder the learning process. Verbal protocol measures were used in order to understand the consumer's learning process as he or she interacts with a technology-based product in real time. They were told that they would have to think aloud while performing certain tasks and that their thoughts would be recorded for further analysis. The personal digital assistant (PDA) with handwriting recognition as its interface was chosen for this study. The main task for the participants was to learn how to use Graffiti writing—i.e., the product's handwriting recognition software. We proceeded to a thematic analysis in which interpretations were generated by the researchers going back and forth between the transcribed texts, the developing interpretation, the new interface itself, and also the relevant literature. The results suggest that the new product's interface serves to structure the consumer's learning process even as he or she responds in relatively unstructured ways. The findings identify three basic factors that interfere with the learning process during consumers’ initial interactions with a technological innovation: interface and functionality practices, social influence, and causal attributions. Specifically, the results suggest that in designing technology-based products there is a gap between the levels of know-how between the manufacturer and the user. The challenge for manufacturers is to understand the consumer's learning experience and coping strategies and provide mechanisms that would make the transition easy and intuitive. This could be achieved by incorporating into the new interface some degree of flexibility that will allow consumers to modify tasks based on their preferences, or by including indicators that will provide feedback to the user. Furthermore, in the context of communication strategies, in order to minimize the negative impact that prior knowledge and social influence may have on learning, marketers could communicate specific steps describing how to use the new interface.

[1]  J. Porac,et al.  Sociocognitive Dynamics in a Product Market , 1999 .

[2]  Shu Ching Yang,et al.  Hypermedia learning and evaluation: a qualitative study of learners' interaction with the Perseus Project , 2000 .

[3]  Chris J. H. Fowler,et al.  Learning technology and usability: a framework for understanding courseware , 1999, Interact. Comput..

[4]  Debora Shaw,et al.  Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests , 1996 .

[5]  E. Krahmer,et al.  Thinking about thinking aloud: a comparison of two verbal protocols for usability testing , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[6]  Roland T. Rust,et al.  Feature Fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too Much of a Good Thing , 2005 .

[7]  Chad Lin,et al.  The attribution of success and failure in IT projects , 2006, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[8]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[9]  P. Johnson-Laird Mental models , 1989 .

[10]  N. Capon,et al.  Marketing and Technology: A Strategic Coalignment , 1987 .

[11]  Thomas Hill,et al.  Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers. , 1987 .

[12]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[13]  D. Dunn,et al.  Experiential Learning , 2019, High Impact Teaching for Sport and Exercise Psychology Educators.

[14]  Stacy L. Wood,et al.  From Fear to Loathing? How Emotion Influences the Evaluation and Early Use of Innovations: , 2006 .

[15]  Paschalina Ziamou,et al.  Innovations in Product Functionality: When and Why Are Explicit Comparisons Effective? , 2003 .

[16]  Steve Hoeffler,et al.  Measuring Preferences for Really New Products , 2003 .

[17]  W. Buxton Human-Computer Interaction , 1988, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[18]  Douglas E. Allen,et al.  Toward a Theory of Consumer Choice as Sociohistorically Shaped Practical Experience: The Fits-Like-a-Glove (FLAG) Framework , 2002 .

[19]  V. Folkes Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Approach , 1984 .

[20]  Monica M. C. Schraefel Designing for the User , 2001, RE.

[21]  S. Thompson Social Learning Theory , 2008 .

[22]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Development and Test of a Theory of Technological Learning and Usage , 1992 .

[23]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[24]  Alladi Venkatesh,et al.  In-home computing and information services : A twenty-year analysis of the technology and its impacts , 1987 .

[25]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Chapter 4 – The Usability Engineering Lifecycle , 1993 .

[26]  Daniel W. Russell,et al.  Cross-Situational Consistency in Causal Attributions: Does Attributional Style Exist? , 1984 .

[27]  Brigitte Borja de Mozota,et al.  The Impact of User‐Oriented Design on New Product Development: An Examination of Fundamental Relationships* , 2005 .

[28]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Cognitive and Linguistic Factors in Interactive Knowledge Construction , 2008 .

[29]  E. Hultink,et al.  “Honey, Have You Seen Our Hamster?” Consumer Evaluations of Autonomous Domestic Products , 2003 .

[30]  Jonathan Kies,et al.  User and task analysis for interface design , 1998 .

[31]  Richard W. Olshavsky,et al.  An Exploratory Study of the Innovation Evaluation Process , 1996 .

[32]  B. Weiner,et al.  Cue utilization and attributional judgments for success and failure , 1971 .

[33]  Stanley J. Baran,et al.  Imitation and identification: Two compatible approaches to social learning from the electronic media , 1974 .

[34]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Process Tracing Methods in Decision Support Systems Research: Exploring the Black Box , 1987, MIS Q..

[35]  B. Weiner Attributional Thoughts about Consumer Behavior , 2000 .

[36]  Dana Chisnell,et al.  Handbook of Usability Testing , 2009 .

[37]  Allen Newell,et al.  Protocol Analysis as a Task for Artificial Intelligence , 1971, IJCAI.

[38]  James H. McMillan,et al.  Attributions , Affect , and Expectations : A Test of Weiner ' s Three-Dimensional Model , 2005 .

[39]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[40]  S. Fournier,et al.  Paradoxes of Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies , 1998 .

[41]  Mohanbir Sawhney,et al.  Learning and using electronic information products and services: A field study , 2001 .

[42]  Erik Jan Hultink,et al.  How Today’s Consumers Perceive Tomorrow’s Smart Products , 2007 .

[43]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Designing with the user: book review of Computers and democracy: a Scandinavian challenge, G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng, Eds. Gower Press, Brookfield, VT, 1987 , 1988, TOIS.

[44]  Ashesh Mukherjee,et al.  The Effect of Novel Attributes on Product Evaluation : Explaining Consumer Resistance to Technological Innovation , 2001 .

[45]  Daniel C. Moos,et al.  Can Students Collaboratively Use Hypermedia to Learn Science? The Dynamics of Self-and other-Regulatory Processes in an Ecology Classroom , 2004 .

[46]  Deborah Roedder John,et al.  Consumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer , 1997 .

[47]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  An Information Search Cost Perspective for Designing Interfaces for Electronic Commerce , 1999 .

[48]  Alladi Venkatesh,et al.  Beyond Adoption: Development and Application of a Use-Diffusion Model , 2004 .

[49]  E. Wenger Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[50]  John M. Carroll,et al.  The Minimal Manual , 1987, SGCH.

[51]  G. Häubl,et al.  Explaining Cognitive Lock-In: The Role of Skill-Based Habits of Use in Consumer Choice , 2007 .

[52]  Amanda J. Broderick,et al.  Analogies and Mental Simulations in Learning for Really New Products: The Role of Visual Attention , 2008 .

[53]  Peter E. Earl,et al.  The Elgar Companion to Consumer Research and Economic Psychology , 1998 .

[54]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Managing What Consumers Learn from Experience , 1989 .

[55]  Andrew Guilfoyle,et al.  Attributions of Responsibility: Rural Neoliberalism and Farmers’ Explanations of The Australian Rural Crisis. , 2004 .

[56]  J. Bettman An information processing theory of consumer choice , 1979 .