Product Instructions as a Meansof Fulfilling Consumers’ Usage GoalsIngrid M. MartinUniversity of ColoradoValerie S. FolkesStudy OneMethod. Subjects were 143 undergraduate students from two universities. Students came in groups of six to eight persons to a small room where they were seated around a conference table. In the middle of the table were two large plants and two small plants, two one-gallon bottles filled with a green liquid fertilizer and two measuring cups. Subjects were told they were participating in a marketing research study to test a new product concept - premixed houseplant fertilizer. The experimenter, who was blind to the goal and instruction conditions, explained that the fertilizer was premixed and could be applied directly to the plants. The small plant was less than one foot tall growing in a small pot and the large plant was more than one foot tall growing in a large pot.Results. The measures of intended compliance, physical effort, and cognitive effort were analyzed using a 2 by 2 ANOVA with two usage goals (outcome maximization vs. effort minimization) and two sets of product instructions (precise vs. range instructions). The analysis reveals an interaction between goals and instruction type for one of the compliance measures (F1,139=15.56, p<.001). When subjects were asked whether they would use more than the instructions specify, those in the incongruent conditions (outcome maximization-range and effort minimization-precise) were more likely to use more as compared to those in the congruent conditions (outcome maximization-precise and effort minimization-range) (F1,139=13.99, p<.001 and F1,139=21.03, p<.001, respectively). Subjects do not intend to use less than the instructions specify, as indicated by the low cell means for the “underdose” measure in Table One.Study ThreeMethod. As in Study 2, the same two usage goals and the same two sets of product instructions were manipulated via experimental instructions making one of the four goal congruency conditions more salient. The task size variable was also used as a way to confirm the generality of the findings (e.g., that deviation is not limited to particular plant sizes or types). Subjects were 92 students taking marketing courses at a major university in the western U.S. The stimuli used in Study 3 were the same as those used in Study 2 in order to replicate the situation as closely as possible. There were plants of two sizes in the office but only one small and one large plant was on the table facing the subject. The plants were the same size and varieties as those used in Study 2.Discussion. Study 3 results are consistent with the results of Study 1 and 2 that show subjects must reconcile the incongruency between these two types of goals. When instructions were perceived to be the optimal means to achieve a particular goal, the discrepancy between the amount used and the amount prescribed in the instructions was less than when the goals and the instructions were evaluated as incongruent. The method used in the experiment suggests that noncompliance did not arise merely because subjects did not pay attention to or did not read or comprehend the instructions. Although consumers do search for goal consistent information (Gollwitzer 1996), the procedures in Study 3 ensured that all subjects were exposed to the instructions and had plenty of time to finish the task. Also, the instructions were simple and required little effort to comprehend.General DiscussionPetersen, D.K. and G.F. Pitz (1988). Confidence, uncertainty, and the use of information, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 85-92.Table One: Mean Ratings for Goal and Instruction Conditions in Study Two1) Intentions to Comply with Instructions:Table Two: Mean Amount Deviated, Confidence Ratings, and Contrasts for Study ThreeCell Means F-Statisticsa for Contrasts1) Mean amount2) ConfidenceProduct Instructions as a Meansof Fulfilling Consumers’ Usage GoalsIngrid M. Martin1University of ColoradoandValerie S. FolkesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaApril 2001DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT AUTHORS’ PERMISSION.1 Ingrid M. Martin is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Economics Institute, Campus Box 259, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80302. Office: 303.526.0332. FAX: 303.273.3416. Email: [email protected]. Valerie S. Folkes is Professor of Marketing at the Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1421. The authors appreciatethe helpful comments of Marty Roth, C.W. Park, and Niraj Dawar. Address any correspondence to the first author.Product Instructions as a Means of Fulfilling Consumers’ Usage GoalsAbstractA set of three studies examined consumer’s intended and actual usage behavior when the congruency between goals and product usage instructions varied. Two goals when using products were manipulated - maximizing the outcome (benefits) from product use and minimizing the effort expended to use the product. Two straightforward forms of product instructions, commonly found on consumer products, were manipulated - one that provided a range of amountsto use (congruent with the effort minimization goal) and one that specified ideal amounts to use for particular task sizes (congruent with the outcome maximization goal). The studies examined the means of attaining one of two goals when instructions were either congruent or incongruent with the task goals. The experimental results revealed that the goal of maximizing the outcome from product usage lead to different notions regarding product preference, intentions, and the actual amount used compared to the goal of minimizing effort depending on the type of product instructions. The results of Study 2 found that consumers intended to deviate from instructions when goals and instructions were incongruent. Consumers in Study 3 deviated from instructions by using more than the instructed amount replicating the reported intentions to deviate by Study 2 consumers. Thus, this research demonstrated that actual behavior was consistent with intended behavior.One important implication of this research is that consumers actively customize products in a purposeful way so that the product better fits their needs(usage goals). This demonstrates that consumers do not passively accept marketer’s mandates about how to use or not to use products. This stream of research is consistent with the warnings literature but instead