Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 67–76 | Cite as

The conceptualization and measurement of product usage

  • S. Ram
  • Hyung-Shik Jung


The purpose of this research is to identify the key conceptual 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.


Microwave Oven Consumer Research Usage Frequency Product Usage Diary Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Belk, Russell W. 1979. “A Free Response Approach to Developing Product-Specific Consumption Situation Taxonomies.” InAnalytical Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning. Ed. Allan D. Shocker. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. 177–196.Google Scholar
  2. —, Kenneth D. Bahn, and Robert N. Mayer. 1982. “Developmental Recognition of Consumption Symbolism.”Journal of Consumer Research. 9 (June): 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bettman, James R. and C. Whan Park. 1980. “The Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis.”Journal of Consumer Research. 7 (December): 234–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloch, Peter H. 1981. “An Exploration into the Scaling of Consumers' Involvement with a Product Class.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Ed. Kent B. Monroe. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. 8: 61–65.Google Scholar
  5. Dutton, William, Peter Kovaric, and Charles Steinfield. 1985. “Computing in the Home: A Research Paradigm.”Computers and the Social Sciences. 1: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson. 1985. “A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 11 (March): 849–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman. 1982. “The Experiential Aspects of Consumer Behavior: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun.”Journal of Consumer Research. 9 (September): 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, Eric J. and J. Edward Russo. 1984. “Product Familiarity and Learning New Information”,Journal of Consumer Research. 11 (June): 542–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Levy, M. R. 1980. “Home video Recorders: A User Study.”Journal of Broadcasting. 24 (3): 327–336.Google Scholar
  11. — 1981. “Home Video Recorders and Time Shifting.”Journalism Quarterly. 58(3): 401–405.Google Scholar
  12. McAlister, Leigh and Edgar Pessemier. 1982. “Variety Seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review.”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (December): 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Metzger, G. 1986. “Contam's VCR Research.”Journal of Advertising Research 26 (2): RC8–12.Google Scholar
  15. Potter, S. James, Edward Forrest, Barry S. Sapolsky, and William Ware. 1988. “Segmenting VCR Owners.”Journal of Advertising Research. 28(2): 29–39.Google Scholar
  16. Price, Linda L. and Nancy M. Ridgway. 1983. “Development of a Scale to Measure Use Innovativeness.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. 10: 679–684.Google Scholar
  17. Ram, S. and Hyung-Shik Jung. 1989. “The Link Between Involvement, Use Innovativeness and Product Usage.” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Ed. Thomas K. Srull. Hawaii: Association for Consumer Research, 16: 160–166.Google Scholar
  18. Solomon, Michael R. 1983. “The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective.”Journal of Consumer Research. 10 (Dec): 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Stanton, John L. and Louis A. Tucci. 1982. “The Measurement of Consumption: A Comparison of Surveys and Diaries.”Journal of Marketing Research. 14 (May): 274–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sudman, Seymour. 1964a. “On the Accuracy of Recording of Consumer Panels: I.”Journal of Marketing Research. 1 (May): 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. — 1964b. “On the Accuracy of Recording of Consumer Panels: II.”Journal of Marketing Research. 1 (August): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wind, Yoram and D. Lerner. 1979. “On the Measurement of Purchase Data: Surveys Versus Purchase Diaries.”Journal of Marketing Research. 16 (February): 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne. 1985. “Familiarity: Product Use, Involvement or Expertise?” InAdvances in Consumer Research. Eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 12: 296–299.Google Scholar
  25. Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne. (1988). “What is Familiarity?”Working Paper. Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Ram
    • 1
  • Hyung-Shik Jung
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ArizonaUSA

Personalised recommendations