Effects of Machine Usability on Final Product Preferences

• ¹ LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, United States
• ² School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, United States
• ³ Department of Family and Community Health, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, United States
• ⁴ General Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, United States

Consumer reports periodically ranks small appliances (e.g., coffee maker, microwave) on performance, and not surprisingly research affirms that consumer satisfaction is also affected by the performance of such small appliances (Creusen and Schoormans, 2005; Keinonen, 1997). Such appliances help reduce the effort a consumer would otherwise spend preparing the products (e.g., coffee, microwaveable meals) in the absence of such appliances (e.g., coffee maker, microwave). However, little is known regarding how the usability of a machine affects consumers’ preferences regarding the final products produced by that machine. Understanding such a relationship could be crucial to decision-making by industrial practitioners. For instance, a consumer may choose one drink over another because the process of making it is easier, not because the taste of the drink is superior to that of the other options. In such a case, the manufacturer’s primary focus should be upgrading the usability of the machine rather than improving the taste of the drink. The present study examines the relationship between machine usability and consumers’ preferences for the drinks produced by the machines. Self-reported surveys and behavioral tasks were employed in this three-trial within-subject experiment to assess participants’ (N=26) responses during drink preparation and consumption. In a simulated office environment, participants completed work-related tasks (math, verbal and visual) before proceeding to a beverage bar, where they prepared two hot drinks from two machines in each trial. There were three such trials with the first two trials providing detailed machine usage instructions for both machines, while the third trial providing no machine usage instructions. Additionally, the first and third trials asked participants to choose one of the two prepared drinks for consumption, while the second trial constrained participants to consume the drink that they did not select in the first trial. This forced choice in the second trial ensured that all participants tasted drinks prepared from both machines by the second trial before making their drink selections for the third trial. In addition to machine usability (1 = not at all easy to use, 9 = extremely easy to use) participants indicated their evaluation of the selected drink (3 items - strong, invigorating, and tasty on 9-point scales). Overall, the results of performances on the behavioral tasks indicate that participants could engage in all three work-related tasks akin to a real work place. A significant difference in machine usability was observed. Participants rated the usability of Machine 1 significantly lower than that of Machine 2 (MMachine1 = 7.3, SD = 1.37; MMachine2 = 8.1, SD = 0.99; t(50) = 2.42, p = 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between the drinks on taste (p = 0.86). In the first trial, 16 participants chose drinks from Machine 1 and 10 chose drinks from Machine 2. In the third trial, 15 participants chose drinks from Machine 1 and 11 chose drinks from Machine 2. Some participants stayed with the same drink and some switched. To analyze the brand-switching behavior, groups were created: 11 participants stayed with Drink 1 (Group 1), 5 left Drink 1 for Drink 2 (Group 2), 4 left Drink 2 for Drink 1 (Group 3), and 6 stayed with Drink 2 (Group 4). The participants from Group 3 gave Machine 1 its highest usability ratings (MMachine1 = 7.6, SD = 1.11), and the participants from Group 2 gave Machine 1 its lowest usability ratings (MMachine1 = 6.4, SD = 1.85). Similarly, Group 2 gave Machine 2 its highest usability ratings (MMachine2 = 8.3, SD = 1.03), and Group 3 gave Machine 2 its lowest usability ratings (MMachine2 = 7.6, SD = 1.11) (Figure 1). These results suggest that a machine’s ease of use influences both the selection of the drink in the first trial and the switching behavior in the third trial. (Figure 1. Self-reported Machine Usability by Groups) Intuitively, the taste of the drink should be the primary determinant of drink choice. As Grönroos (1998) argues, the benefits from consuming a physical product should come from consuming the outcome, rather than the process. However, the results of the present study indicate that the consumption of the process—in this case, participants’ use of the machines— may be a greater influence on people’s selection of drinks prepared from such machines and their perceived consumption experience. Our results suggest that additional research is needed to further understand the relationship between the usability of a machine and consumers’ preferences for the final product produced by that machine. Future studies could include manipulation of the participants’ involvement in the preparation to observe the influences of invested effort on final product preferences.