Technical Communication in Assembly Instructions - SAGE Journals

Article Journal of Business and Technical Communication 1-30 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1050651915602292 jbtc.sagepub.com

Technical Communication in Assembly Instructions: An Empirical Study to Bridge the Gap Between Theoretical Gender Differences and Their Practical Influence

Valentina Rohrer-Vanzo1, Tobias Stern1, Elisabeth Ponocny-Seliger2, and Peter Schwarzbauer3

Abstract Women decide on about 80% of the goods that their household buys. But marketers often sell products, especially technical ones, that are designed by men and therefore are oriented largely toward their needs. Consequently, assembly instructions for these products are also oriented toward

1

Kompetenzzentrum Holz, Linz, Austria Sigmund Freud Privatuniversita¨t Wien, Vienna, Austria 3 University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria 2

Corresponding Author: Valentina Rohrer-Vanzo, Wood K plus, Altenberger Straße 69, Linz 4040, Austria. E-mail: [email protected]

2

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

men’s needs. To illustrate the impact of gender orientation in assembly instructions, this study investigates whether theoretical cognitive or psychological gender differences have a practical influence on the usability of assembly instructions. This study has direct implications for technical writers who strive for a more universal design for such instructions. Keywords assembly instructions, gender-oriented design, experimental study, gender marketing

Feminist historians and sociologists of technology have shown the alignments between technology and masculinity, especially in engineering (Berg, 1996; Cockburn & Ormrod, 1993; Faulkner, 2000; Oldenziel, 1999). But women deal with technology differently so they need information that is targeted specifically to their requirements. Consumer-oriented product design needs to particularly focus on the female market because women constitute a meaningful and growing target group for technical products and thus also for assembly instructions. This female-oriented design focus has certain consequences for technical communication in assembly instructions (e.g., Allen, 1991; Juhl, 2005; Kothes, 2011; Lay, 1991). Marketers or advertisers commonly segment products or services according to gender (Putrevu, 2001). In the 1990s, gender marketing was established in the United States and has been practiced successfully by many companies ever since. In contrast, only a few years ago, European companies began targeting their marketing efforts on gender-specific needs (Pfannenmu¨ller, 2006). During the last several years, some empirical studies have dealt with gender differences and their implications for marketing but have mostly focused on advertising topics (e.g., Feiereisen, Broderick, & Douglas, 2009; Kempf, Laczniak, & Smith, 2006; Klink, 2009; Martin, 2003; Melnyk &Van Osselaer, 2012; Petzoldt, Schliewe, & Willbrandt, 2010; Ulrich, 2013). But even though it is quite common in marketing campaigns to address men and women with different advertising strategies, this differentiation normally does not extend to assembly instructions. In fact, such instructions are generally getting less attention (Straub, 2010). Gender marketing focuses on consumer’s gender-specific characteristics and takes them into account in product development, distribution, pricing, and communication (Jaffe, 2005). Darley and Smith (1995) suggested that gender meets a number of the needs for successful segmentation: The

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

3

segments are easy to identify, easily accessible, and large enough to be profitable. But in order to deliver products or services that satisfy the unique needs and aspirations of customers, marketers are asked to understand these specific gender characteristics (Putrevu, 2001). Since technical products also play an increasingly important role in women’s everyday life, this study uses an example of an assembly instruction to illustrate the impact that gender orientation can have in technical product development. The objective of this study is to investigate whether common cognitive or psychological gender differences have a practical influence on a common situation, namely the use of assembly instructions. First, we provide a theoretical background and an elaboration of the objectives and hypotheses for the study. Then we report the results of the study and conclude with a discussion of its managerial implications and possibilities for future research.

Theoretical Background Since the late 1980s, the paradigm for design has shifted from being technology oriented to being user oriented (e.g., Friedman, 1989; Norman & Draper, 1986). Users’ needs are receiving more and more attention in the design process; concepts such as ‘‘user-centered design’’ or ‘‘design for all’’ are widely used by designers, technical writers, and policy makers interested in questions of equal access to technologies (Oudshoorn, Rommes, & Stienstra, 2004). The term ‘‘universal design’’ was coined by architects Story, Mueller, and Mace (1998)to describe the concept of designing products to be as aesthetic and usable as possible for everyone, regardless of age, ability, or status in life. Also, assembly instructions need to be designed so that they are useful and accessible for people with diverse abilities (Scott, McGuire, & Shaws, 2001). The idea of designing instructions in a user-friendly way relates directly to the concept of usability, which involves factors such as ease of learning, ease of use, intuitiveness, and fun. The critical measures of usability are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Whereas effectiveness and efficiency support users’ need to reach a certain goal, the critical criterion is users’ satisfaction (Barnum, 2011). Once companies recognize the benefits of applying usability methods to improve their products, they often decide to make usability a permanent part of the development process (Nielsen, 1994). A product’s usability is typically measured by having a number of users test the product by performing a specified task (Barnum, 2002). Rubin and Chisnell (2008), among others, have proposed that among the many

4


methods for studying usability, the most basic and useful is user testing. This method involves three components: looking for some representative users, asking these users to perform representative tasks, and observing what these users do—where they succeed and where they have difficulties—with the user interface. Usability testing, then, can be seen as a process of learning about users from users by observing them while they use a certain product (Barnum, 2011). According to Nielsen (1994), five users are enough to test the usability of a certain product. Other researchers published similar findings concerning conducting usability tests with only a few test users (Lewis, 1995; Virzi, 1992).

Gender Research and Gender-Oriented Design To understand women’s specific requirements concerning assembly instructions, you need to first have a general understanding of gender differences and their possible origins. Whereas an individual’s sex, whether a person is male or female, is determined by biology, an individual’s gender is constructed by society itself, based on those characteristics that society deems to be feminine or masculine (West & Zimmermann, 1987). There are two general approaches to explaining the origin of gender differences: the nature approach, which assumes that biological factors mainly determine the differences between men and women, and the nurture approach, which assumes that social, cultural, and environmental factors mainly determine these differences. But the two approaches likely interact (e.g., Jaffe´ & Riedel, 2011; Kunter & Stanat, 2002). Fausto Sterling (1988) contended that biological factors (nature) account for no more than 5% of gender differences whereas cultural and social influences (nurture) account for 95% of such differences. Hyde (2005) discussed 45 different meta-analyses that deal with gender differences. For the classification of differences, most of the studies used Cohen’s (1988) effect size (d), which gives information on the extent of difference. But Hyde (2005) proposed the ‘‘gender similarities hypothesis’’ that women and men are similar in most but not all psychological aspects. This hypothesis suggests that in terms of effect size, most gender differences are small (d ¼ 0.11–0.35), few are within moderate range (d ¼ 0.36–0.65), and even fewer are large (d ¼ 0.66–1.00) or very large (d ¼ 1.00). Hence, only a few consistent and robust sex differences have been found, and these differences relate in large part to very specific skills (Petzoldt et al., 2010). Gender differences, then, should always be seen in the context

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

5

of a specific situation and not as a fixed constant (Bode & Hansen, 2005; Schraudner & Lukoschat, 2006). Some scholars found the concept of men and women as biological or social beings limited and therefore turned their attention to gender identities and technology (e.g., Park & Nye, 1991; Yates & Littleton, 1999). Scholars have found that in making conclusions based on gender differences, gender stereotypes play an important role, but in most cases, the real differences are small (e.g., Asendorpf, 2009; Hausman, 2007; Hyde, 2005). Also, stereotype threat needs to be considered when making such conclusions, especially concerning technical products. Stereotype threat, the fear that the individual behavior of social group members (e.g., females) might confirm a negative stereotype against the group (e.g., the common stereotype that women are not skilled in technology), may result in self-fulfilling prophecies, especially when this fear causes prejudice to affect the behavior. Different studies show that in linking female gender identity to women’s performance on math tests, women with higher levels of gender identification performed worse than men, but women with lower levels of gender identification performed equally to men (e.g., Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2008; Schmader, 2002; Steele, 1997). Overall, the challenge of gender-oriented design, then, is to not reproduce gender stereotypes while taking gender aspects into account (e.g., Bode & Hansen, 2005; Jaffe´, 2005). Generally, women decide on about 80% of the consumer goods bought by a household (Haüsel, 2004; Johnson & Learned, 2004). But marketers come up with products, especially technical products, that are often designed and constructed by men and therefore are oriented largely on their needs (Bode & Hansen, 2005). With the market situation changing from a seller’s market to a buyer’s market in most industries, today’s customers demand products that accommodate their specific needs (Kesting & Rennhak, 2008). Thus, especially in technical fields, there seems to still be an enormous backlog demand concerning consumer orientation in general and gender orientation in particular even though product development has a significant impact on all other marketing tools and already determines the product’s success or failure. Nevertheless, product developers so far have rarely applied an active and early consideration of consumers and their needs (Zollondz, 2005). Gender-typical roles and behavior are defined and reproduced daily by society itself. In such a way, products, or parts of them, also influence people and their behavior. In fact, marketers frequently encode their products with masculine or feminine attributes so that they can work with gender role models or gender stereotypes created by society (e.g., the common

6


stereotype of the negative relationship between women and technology). Furthermore, marketers can also form and reproduce these role models and stereotypes with their products. Hence, assembly instructions can not only influence a product’s success but also contribute to social changes concerning gender-typical roles or stereotypes (Bode & Hansen, 2005). The gender-related needs of customers concerning the use of assembly instructions have received little attention by academic research so far. Customer focus is an important starting point for integrating gender issues in technology development because gender marketing already starts with product development. Assuming that women and men proceed differently in respect to their use of assembly instructions, then, we may infer that current assembly instructions are more likely to be designed according to the needs of males (Jaffe´, 2005).

Instructional Documentation and Gender Issues To use various products in their everyday life, consumers need basic technological knowledge. Many products need to be assembled at home (e.g., furniture, appliances, and toys), and these products typically include instructions that explain how to assemble them (Mijksenaar & Westendorp, 1999). Such assembly instructions should help consumers to easily understand the structure of the product (Ming-Chin & Chih-Fu, 2011). Although there may be a variety of ways to assemble a product, the challenge for designers is to choose a way that will be easy for consumers to understand (Agrawala et al., 2003). In fact, assembly instructions are an essential part of the product that must meet both technical and legal quality requirements and standards equal to those for the product itself. Inadequate assembly instructions could even lead to rescission of the product or cause the producer to have to reimburse or compensate for damages to the consumer (Straub, 2010). A gender-oriented design should enable both genders to operate the technical device and use it easily. The instructions should be equally understandable to both men and women and should motivate both groups to actually read them. But assembly instructions often do not fulfill this required level of clarity. There are a high number of poorly designed instructions because the process of producing instructions is timeconsuming, labor intensive, and expensive (Agrawala et al., 2003). A German study confirmed that about 1 in 10 assembly instructions on the market has severe security-relevant deficiencies and that 70–90% show at least minor deficiencies (Straub, 2010).

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

7

A common problem is that if assembly instructions are hard to follow, people often think that they are not skilled or experienced enough to fulfill the task (Adams, 1999). A persons’ self-confidence or even self-efficacy can be affected by such instructions. Self-efficacy is the personal conviction that one is able to provide an adequate performance in a certain situation. This conviction influences an individual’s self-perception, motivation, and performance (Gerrig & Zimbardo, 2008). A German study of teenagers showed that, in general, they had a positive self-efficacy in relation to their talent for using everyday technology. But it showed that female participants had a significantly lower self-efficacy than did male participants. In addition, female participants had a significantly higher level of anxiety in dealing with technology than male participants did (Ziefle & Jakobs, 2009). A particularly important contribution to designing assembly instructions was made by Martin (2007), who demonstrated that, in particular, girls who showed difficulties in assembling a toy tended to attribute these difficulties to their own abilities even though the difficulties were found to originate from the assembly instructions’ lack of usability. Martin concluded that girls’ self-efficacy is influenced negatively by bad assembly instructions. Consequently, inadequate assembly instructions could be an essential problem, especially for females. Numerous researchers have addressed gender issues in technical communication, and their work serves as an important basis for our study. To mention a few, Tebeaux (1990) found that people-intensive work experience modifies gender-based language differences in written business communication. Lay (1991), investigated the impact of feminist theory on technical communication, and Allen (1991) presented an overview of research and unanswered questions related to gender issues in technical communication. In a later study, Lay (1994) reviewed selected gender studies that inform professional communication as well as some recent articles on professional communication that make use of gender studies. Gurak and Bayer (1994) showed the possibility for technical communicators to play more critical roles in balancing gender biases in technology. Durack (1997) considered why women have been absent from the history of technical communication. And Thompson (1999) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis in which she identified 40 studies about women and feminism published in communication journals from 1989 through 1997, starting with Lay’s (1989) award-winning publication ‘‘Interpersonal Conflict in Collaborative Writing.’’ Table 1 summarizes some selected newer studies that are relevant to the gender-oriented design of assembly instructions.

8

Catharina Landstro¨m

Queering Feminist Technology Studies

Problematizing the User in UserCentered Production: A New Media Lab Meets Its Audiences Cortney V. Martin The Importance of Self-Efficacy to Usability: Grounded Theory Analysis of a Child’s Toy Assembly Task Configuring the User as Nelly Everybody: Gender and Design Oudshoorn, Els Cultures in Information and Rommes, and Communication Technologies Marcelle Stienstra Mary M. Lay Feminist Theory and the Redefinition of Technical Communication

Philippe Ross

(continued)

2004 Intersections of feminist theory with ethnographic studies of collaborative writing in technical communication 2004 Queer theory and feminist technology study

Central Works in Technical Communication

Science Technology & Human Values

2004 Design cultures, information and communication technologies, and inclusion–exclusion

2013 Gender and communication, history of technology and technical communication, and technical communication and culture 2010 Educational technology, new media, and user-centered design 2007 Gender differences between children, building toys, and assembly instructions

Year Focus

Science, Technology, & Human Values

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting

Social Studies of Science

Technical User Agency, Technical Communication Quarterly Communication, and the 19thCentury Woman Bicyclist

Sarah Hallenbeck

Source

Title

Author

Table 1. Selected Studies That Are Relevant to Gender-Oriented Design.

9

Title

Elizabeth Overman Feminist Theory in Technical Communication: Making Smith and Isabelle Knowledge Claims Visible Thompson Amy Koerber Toward a Feminist Rhetoric of Technology

Author

Table 1. (continued) Year Focus

Journal of Business and Technical 2002 Knowledge claims and themes in Communication 20 articles that discuss gender differences Journal of Business and Technical 2000 Feminist rhetoric of technology Communication

Source

10


Literature review on gender differences

Analysis of assembly instructions and their components

Derivation of gender-impact factors

Design of assembly instructions

Conduction of Matador Lab (experiment)

Conclusion

Figure 1. Procedure for this study.

Research Design and Hypotheses This study investigates whether theoretical cognitive or psychological gender differences have a practical influence on the usability of assembly instructions. Furthermore, it investigates the extent to which assembly instructions influence how men and women use the product. To examine male and female customers’ requirements concerning assembly instructions, we chose an experimental design (a user test). Our procedure for this empirical study is illustrated in Figure 1. Our first research step was to review the existing literature on cognitive and psychological differences between females and males (e.g., Halpern, 2000; Halpern & LaMay, 2000; Hyde, 2005; Kimura, 1999; Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002). Along with this literature review, we analyzed common assembly instructions on various technical topics (e.g., home furniture and home appliances) in order to define impact factors (components such as structure, choice of color, perspective, etc.). From this literature review and instructions analysis, we derived five possible gender-impact factors in respect to constructing effective assembly instructions. Thus, in the following experiment, we considered only those theoretical gender differences that concerned attributes relating to these five impact factors. Subsequently, we grouped the attributes according to their related gender-impact factors. Table 2 shows the relationships between

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

11

Table 2. The Relationships Between Gender Attributes Discussed in the Literature and Possible Gender-Impact Factors in Assembly Instructions.

Attribute

Gender Author (Year)

Spatial abilities

Male

Possible Gender-Impact Factors Concerning Assembly Instructions

Feingold (1988); Linn and Richness of detail and work flow Petersen (1985); Voyer, Voyer, and Bryden (1995) Female Burns and Nettelbeck (2005) Female Tamres, Janicki, and Helgeson (2002) Male Bettencourt and Miller (1996)

Speed of perception Attention on problem Aggression under neutral conditions Conscientiousness Female Feingold (1994) Spatial abilities

Verbal memory Perceptual speed

Feingold (1988); Linn and Proportions Petersen (1985); Voyer et al. (1995) Female Kimura (1999) Text and written Female Burns and Nettelbeck directions (2005); Feingold (1988); Hedges and Nowell (1995) Female Hedges and Nowell (1995)

Male

Reading comprehension Mental rotation Male

Spatial abilities

Self-esteem

Perspective (mirrorHedges and Nowell inverted drawings that (1995); Linn and need rotation) Petersen (1985); Voyer et al. (1995)

Male

Feingold (1988); Linn and Petersen (1985); Voyer et al. (1995) Range of self-efficacy Female Feingold (1994); Kling, (motivation, time Hyde, Showers, and specifications, and Buswell (1999) Female Feingold (1994) expectations)

Neuroticism: anxiety Conscientiousness Female Feingold (1994) Mathematics self- Male Hyde, Fennema, Ryan, confidence Frost, and Hopp (1990)

(continued)

12


Table 2. (continued)

Attribute

Gender Author (Year)

Possible Gender-Impact Factors Concerning Assembly Instructions

Male Whitley, McHugh and Attribution of Frieze (1986) failure to ability and effort Female Whitley et al. (1986) Attribution of success to luck, effort, and task

attributes discussed in the literature and the five gender-impact factors that were derived from the assembly instructions. Consequently, from those five gender-impact factors that might influence how women use assembly instructions, we derived the following working hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Women are negatively influenced by richness of detail and little work flow in assembly instructions. Hypothesis 2: Women are negatively influenced by unrealistic proportions in assembly instructions. Hypothesis 3: Women are positively influenced by the presence of written directions (printed left to right) in assembly instructions. Hypothesis 4: Women are negatively influenced by mirror-inverted drawings that need rotation in assembly instructions. Hypothesis 5: Women are positively influenced by clear target pictures and realistic time specifications in assembly instructions. Finally, Hypothesis 6 takes all five gender-impact factors into consideration to create instructions that do not cause measurable gender differences between men and women in their ability to comprehend the instructions: Hypothesis 6: If all five gender-impact factors are considered in the design of assembly instructions so that each one has a positive effect for women, no gender differences will be found in respect to their ability to comprehend and use the instructions.

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

13

Figure 2. The model-kit carousel used as a test object.

Material and Method Based on our six hypotheses, we chose a test object for the survey, a technical toy with assembly instructions. We chose a toy, a model-kit carousel (see Figure 2), because it was easier to handle in a survey situation than, for example, furniture would be. We designed six different sets of assembly instructions for this model-kit carousel based on our hypotheses. Of these six sets, one optimal set of assembly instructions was designed taking all five gender-impact factors into consideration so that they would have a positive influence on women (assembly instructions A based on Hypothesis 6). To test Hypotheses 1–5, each of the other five assembly instructions include an identified flaw based on the gender-impact factor of the hypothesis tested. Apart from that, they are all identical to assembly instructions A (see Figures 3–5). In Figure 3, the assembly instructions in A (based on Hypothesis 6) are the optimal assembly instructions from a gender perspective whereas the assembly instructions in B1 (based on Hypothesis 1) include more richness of detail and less work flow (i.e., in terms of the number of separate pictures needed to describe the process). In Figure 4, the assembly instructions in B2 (based on Hypothesis 2) have unrealistic, or incorrect, proportions (i.e., in terms of the size relations of different compartments shown), and the assembly instructions in B3 have no written directions (based on Hypothesis 3). In Figure 5, the assembly instructions in B4 (based on Hypothesis 4) include a mirror-inverted drawing (the upper drawing) that needs rotation, and the

14


Figure 3. Assembly instructions A (optimum, all gender-impact factors are positive influences for females) on the left side and assembly instructions B1 (more richness of detail and a reduced work flow, in terms of fewer separate pictures) on the right side.

assembly instructions in B5 (based on Hypothesis 5) include a more complex target picture and a longer than necessary, or unrealistic, time specification.

Participants We chose a homogeneous rather than a representative sample of students in a course at the Austrian University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna to participate in this study (n ¼ 78). Participants were grouped into female and male students with different levels of experience and skills with using assembly instructions. To achieve a balanced gender ratio, we added additional voluntary participants (n ¼ 23) to the sample for a total of 101 participants (see Table 3).

Procedure We assigned 50 females and 51 males with the task of assembling a wooden model-kit item, a toy carousel. The participants did not know the purpose of

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

15

Figure 4. Assembly instructions B2 (incorrect proportions) on the left side and assembly instructions B3 (no written directions) on the right side.

the study, that there were different assembly instructions available, or that the study had a focus on gender differences. A supervisor separated the participants into six groups based on their sex and experience with using assembly instructions in order to achieve a balanced ratio of sex and experience within each group. As a result, the groups differed slightly in size. The participants were welcomed and briefed individually by a supervisor and seated with a wall next to them so that they could not see the participant sitting and working next to them. In the beginning, the participants were each given a questionnaire that covered factors affecting their approach to technical tasks. It asked questions about their experience with product assemblies, their self-confidence with technical tasks in general, how often they played with technical toys (e.g., model kits like Legos) in their childhood, and so on. After completing the first questionnaire, participants received a model kit for building the carousel along with one of the six designed assembly instructions (not knowing that there were five other sets of instructions). Their task was to build the model carousel using the assembly instructions. After finishing the assembly, they received another questionnaire. This second questionnaire included questions about their

16


Figure 5. Assembly instructions B4 (mirror-inverted drawing that needs rotation) on the left side and assembly instructions B5 (complex target picture and a longer than necessary time specification) on the right side. Table 3. Characteristics of the Study Participants. Gender Age Study programs

Participation Assembly instructions

Males Females

51 Participants 50 Participants

Age range of participants Average age of participants Environment and bioresources management Forestry Wood and fiber technology Landscape architecture and landscape planning Chosen Voluntary A B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

20–40 Years 28 Years 67 Participants 11 Participants 12 Participants 11 Participants 78 Participants 23 Participants 14 Participants 16 Participants 15 Participants 19 Participants 20 Participants 17 Participants

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

17

personal assembly experience (e.g., Did you experience feelings of self-consciousness?) as well as questions about the set of instructions itself. The supervisor documented the assembly by recording the time needed as well as the outcome (errors) of the assembly itself.

Data Analysis We conducted several analyses. First, we removed from the sample statistical outliers in age or experience with model kits of this type or with any type of product assembly in the past year. Second, we evaluated the general differences between females and males concerning their principal approach to technology and technical tasks. Among the factors we evaluated, differences between males’ and females’ construction success and their satisfaction with the construction seemed to be the most important outcomes, so we focus on those outcomes in our results discussion. Accordingly, we considered these three outcome variables as essential: errors in outcome, time needed for assembly, and self-confidence after assembly. Consequently, we applied t-tests for independent samples, with errors in outcome, time needed for assembly and self-confidence after assembly as the dependent variables and gender as the independent variable for the sample, which we divided into six groups based on the different assembly instructions (A, B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5) used.

Results The results of the t-tests for independent samples already showed significant differences between females and males in their principal approach to the technical task of assembling an object:

Females generally believed that they are less successful than males are in understanding everyday technical content, F(1.102) ¼ 4.21, p < .05. Females also stated significantly less often than males did that they played with model-kit toys in their childhood, F(1.102) ¼ 7.47, p < .05. Females in general indicated statistically significant less interest in technology than males did, F(1.102) ¼ 12.58, p < .05. Females stated having less self-confidence before beginning the task (i.e., the task of assembling the model-kit carousel shown to participants in a picture) than males did, F(1.102) ¼ 14.61, p < .05.

18


Table 4. Mean Outcome Errors of Females Compared to Those of Males in Assembling the Model-Kit Carousel With Different Assembly Instructions (on a Scale Ranging From 1 ¼ No Errors to 5 ¼ Errors in All Four Areas). Mean Standard Significance n Errors Deviation (p) Assembly instructions A No negative gender-impact factors Assembly instructions B1 With more richness of detail and little work flow Assembly instructions B2 With incorrect proportions Assembly instructions B3 With no written directions available Assembly instructions B4 With mirror-inverted drawings that need rotation Assembly instructions B5 With complex target picture and longer than necessary time specification

Males Females Males Females

8 6 8 8

1.50 2.00 1.63 2.75

0.53 1.26 0.52 0.89

.331

Males 8 Females 7 Males 9 Females 10 Males 10 Females 10

1.88 1.71 1.22 1.70 1.70 2.30

0.83 0.76 0.44 0.67 0.82 1.25

.704

Males Females

1.75 1.56

0.70 0.72

.585

8 9

.008**

.089* .221

*p .05. **p .01.

Tables 4–6 summarize the results of t-tests for independent samples for each of the three defined outcome variables and compare the differences between the results for females and those for males according to which set of assembly instructions they used. No differences were found between volunteers and nonvolunteers. The participants’ errors could occur in four different areas: the ground plate, rotating element, tower, or string. Hence, we evaluated outcome on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 ¼ no errors to 5 ¼ errors in all four areas). As Table 4 shows, females, on average, tended to make more errors, meaning that their carousels often were not assembled as well as those of their male counterparts. The effect of more errors in outcome is significant for instructions B1, F(1.16) ¼ 9.61, p < .05, and instructions B3, F(1.18) ¼ 3.25, p < .1. As Table 5 shows women took longer than men did in assembling the carousel, except the women using instructions A, who finished the assembly on an average of 1 minute earlier than did the men. The difference of time needed between males and females is significant for instructions B4, F(1.20) ¼ 8.88, p < .05, and instructions B5, F(1.17) ¼ 4.50, p < .1.

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

19

Table 5. Time Needed by Females Compared to That Needed by Males for Assembling the Model-Kit Carousel With Different Assembly Instructions.

Assembly instructions A No negative gender-impact factors Assembly instructions B1 With more richness of detail and reduced number of steps Assembly instructions B2 With incorrect proportions Assembly instructions B3 With no written directions available Assembly instructions B4 With mirror-inverted drawings that need rotation Assembly instructions B5 With complex target picture and longer than necessary time specification

n

Mean Standard Significance Time Deviation (p)

8 6 8 8

26:00 25:00 25:00 29:00

04:00 06:00 06:00 08:00

.782

Males 8 21:00 Females 7 25:00 Males 9 21:00 Females 10 24:00 Males 10 21:00 Females 10 32:00

04:00 05:00 07:00 08:00 04:00 10:00

.243

Males Females

04:00 07:00

.051*

Males Females Males Females

8 20:00 9 27:00

.285

.354 .008**

*p .05. **p .01.

Table 6 shows the difference between men and women in their selfconfidence after assembling the carousel, which is possibly influenced by the assembly instructions. As other studies have found, women in general show a lower level of self-confidence in performing technical tasks than men do (e.g., Ziefle & Jakobs, 2009). Our research results confirm these findings. Assembly instructions can have a negative influence on women’s self-confidence in performing such tasks. For instructions B1, F(1.16) ¼ 5.09, p < .05, and instructions B4, F(1.20) ¼ 6.44, p < .05, the difference between females and males in self-confidence after assembling the carousel is significant. We found no significant results for the questions about the assembly instructions themselves (i.e., each gender-impact factor was evaluated by the participants). In general, questions about the perceived quality of the assembly instructions adduced no significant gender differences. Although participants were explicitly asked to evaluate the quality of their assembly instructions, they did not attribute either good or bad results to the instructions. Consequently, assembly instructions with gender-impact factors included were not blamed for the outcome by either females or males.

20


Table 6. Self-Confidence of Females Compared to That of Males After Assembling the Model-Kit Carousel With Different Assembly Instructions (1 ¼ Very SelfConfident; 5 ¼ Not Self-Confident). Mean Standard Significance n Confidence Deviation (p) Assembly instructions A No negative gender-impact factors Assembly instructions B1 With more richness of detail and reduced number of steps Assembly instructions B2 With incorrect proportions Assembly instructions B3 With no written directions available Assembly instructions B4 With mirror-inverted drawings that need rotation Assembly instructions B5 With clear target picture and realistic time specifications

Males Females

8 6

2.00 1.83

1.07 1.17

.786

Males Females

8 8

1.75 2.75

0.89 0.89

.041**

Males 8 Females 7 Males 9 Females 10

1.75 2.14 1.89 1.90

0.70 0.38 0.78 1.10

.212

Males 10 Females 10

1.40 2.50

0.52 1.27

.021**

Males Females

2.00 2.44

0.93 0.88

.327

8 9

.980

*p .05. **p .01.

In summary, assembly instructions A did not include any gender-impact factors that might negatively influence women’s ability to comprehend and use the instructions. Because we found no significant differences between men and women in our analysis of instructions A, we can retain Hypothesis 6, which proposes that if all five gender-impact factors are incorporated in the design of assembly instructions so that each one has a positive effect for women, no differences should occur between men and women in their ability to successful use the instructions. We can further conclude that genderoriented assembly instructions might have enormous potential to increase the efficiency and value of these instructions for customers. Assembly instructions B1 and B4 especially demonstrated a negative effect on the female participants because more than one outcome variable underlined significant differences between females and males. According to Hypothesis 1, the richness of detail and reduced number of steps included in instructions B1 would influence women in a negative way. Thus, with instructions B1, females indeed made more errors in their

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

21

outcome, F(1.16) ¼ 9.61, p < .05, and were less self-confident after assembling the carousel than males were, F(1.16) ¼ 5.09, p < .05. According to Hypothesis 2, the incorrect proportions included in instructions B2 would influence females in a negative way. Our results do not support this hypothesis because no significant gender differences were found in our analysis of using B2. Further, Hypothesis 3 suggests that the exclusion of written directions (printed left to right) in instructions B3 would influence females in a negative way. This hypothesis is supported by our results because female subjects made significantly more errors using instructions B3 (with no written directions) than males did, F(1.19) ¼ 3.25, p < .1. Hypothesis 4 claims that the mirror-inverted drawing that needs rotation in instructions B4 would influence females in a negative way. Our results do support this hypothesis. Females using instructions B4 needed more time to assemble the carousel than males did, F(1.20) ¼ 8.88, p < .05. They also were less self-confident after assembling it than males were, F(1.20) ¼ 6.44, p < .05. Finally, Hypothesis 5 suggests that clear target pictures and realistic time specifications in instructions influence females in a positive way. Our results do support this hypothesis because female participants took significantly more time assembling the carousel than did male participants when using instructions B5, which included a more complex target picture and a longer than necessary time specification, F(1.17) ¼ 4.50, p < .1. Table 7 summarizes the impact of the different assembly instructions. It illustrates that apart from instructions A and instructions B2, all the other instructions had a negative influence on women in at least one of the three defined outcome variables. Thus, the results of this experiment suggest that gender differences concerning the use of assembly instructions can be caused by specific gender-impact factors in the instructions and can vary according to these factors.

Discussion and Conclusion This study examined the influence of assembly instructions on consumers’ ability to assemble a product. Our experiment provides evidence that modifying individual components of assembly instructions can influence individual outcomes and that quality is an essential criterion of assembly instructions. Effective assembly instructions can have a lasting effect on consumers’ future purchasing decisions and on their satisfaction with the product and manufacturer. Designing targeted assembly instructions, then,

22 Incorrect Proportions — — —

More Richness of Detail and Reduced Number of Steps " — #

No Negative Gender-Impact Factors

—

—

—

—

—

—

"

" #

—

—

Complex Target Picture and Increased Time Specification

Mirror-Inverted Drawings That Need Rotation

No Written Directions Available "

B5

B4

B3

Note. " ¼ women more than men; # ¼ women less than men; — ¼ no significant difference.

Errors in outcome Time needed for assembly Self-confidence after assembly

Gender-Impact Factor

B2

B1

A

Table 7. Summary of Significant Differences in Outcome of Females Compared to That of Males After Assembly of the Carousel With Different Assembly Instructions.

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

23

entails consideration of the specific gender differences that we found in this experiment. The study’s results support the notion that women are influenced more negatively than men by bad assembly instructions. Consequently, technical writers implementing integrated product development should ensure that the design of their products’ assembly instructions takes into consideration the gender-impact factors discussed here. Further, these results should encourage technical writers to become more engaged in practical work with gender aspects. The results suggest that gender differences do exist, but they vary according to the product, in this case, the different assembly instructions. Although the common stereotype that women have a generally negative relationship with technology can be clearly contradicted, gender orientation in product development is nevertheless essential in technical fields. The study provides numerous opportunities for future research on gender differences and their implications. The example of assembly instructions used here demonstrates that developers of various other technical products should take a closer look at the needs of female consumers. Future research should therefore strive to measure the impact of theoretical gender differences on other product areas. In addition, researchers should take a more detailed look at the different types of assembly instructions from a gender perspective. One limitation of the study is that the number of participants within each of the six experiment groups was relatively small (n ¼ 14–20). Although according to Nielsen (1994) and other researchers (Lewis, 1995; Virzi, 1992), five users are enough to test the usability of a product, further research could test the results using a greater number of participants. Beyond that, the next step should be to investigate the usability for other groups, such as elderly people. Furthermore, because women and men do not actually form an internally homogeneous group, the suggestions given here for a gender-oriented design of assembly instructions may not be generally applicable. But it is essential that gender-typical differences are taken into consideration when analyzing the target groups. The gender-impact factors discussed here can serve as reference points and guidelines. Finally, perhaps the most important implication of this study is that the development of user-oriented technical products should start with product design rather than advertising strategies. As this experiment has shown, gender-oriented assembly instructions can cause significant differences in outcomes and therefore make a crucial contribution to customer

24


satisfaction. Moreover, they can make an essential contribution to promoting gender equality and to removing negative gender stereotyping. Thus, developing gender-orientated assembly instructions has both social (by promoting gender equality) and economic (by increasing customer satisfaction) benefits. Acknowledgments This study was supported by the Matador GmbH, who provided model kits for the experiments, and the Microgiants Industrial Design GmbH, who designed the assembly instructions for the experiments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of FFG–Austrian Research Promotion Agency under project number 830826.

References Adams, A. (1999). Usability testing in information design. In H. J. Zwaga, T. Boersema, & H. C. M Hoonhout (Eds.), Visual information for everyday use (pp. 3–20). London, England: Taylor & Francis. Agrawala, M., Phan, D., Heiser, J., Haymaker, J., Klinger, J., Hanrahan, P., . . . Tversky, B. (2003). Designing effective step-by-step assembly instructions. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2003, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 22, 828–837. Allen, J. (1991). Gender issues in technical communication studies: An overview of the implications for the profession, research, and pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5, 371–392. Asendorpf, J. B. (2009). Personality: Traits and situations. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 43–53). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Barnum, C. (2011). Usability testing essentials. Ready, set . . . test! Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Barnum, C. M. (2002). Usability testing and research. New York, NY: Longman. Berg, A. (1996). Digital feminism (Report No 28). Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Centre for Technology and Society.

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

25

Bettencourt, A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447. Bode, M., & Hansen, U. (2005). Das Geschlecht der Marketingwissenschaft. Wie ‘ma¨nnlich’ ist sie und wie ‘weiblich’ soll sie sein [The sex of marketing science. How ‘‘male’’ and ‘‘female’’ should it be]? In G. Krell (Ed.), Betriebswirtschaftslehre und gender studies (pp. 39–58). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler. Burns, N., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Inspection time and speed of processing: Sex differences on perceptual speed but not IT. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 439–446. Cockburn, C., & Ormrod, S. (1993). Gender & technology in making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Darley, W. K., & Smith, R. E. (1995). Gender differences in information processing strategies: An empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response differences. Journal of Advertising, 24, 443–449. Durack, K. T. (1997). Gender, technology, and the history of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 249–260. Faulkner, W. (2000). The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for ‘‘making gender stick’’ to engineers. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 87–119. Fausto Sterling, A. (1988). Gefangene des Geschlechts? Was biologische Theorien u¨ber Mann und Frau sagen [Prisoners of gender? What biological theories tell about men and women]. Munich, Germany: Piper. Feiereisen, S., Broderick, A. J., & Douglas, S. P. (2009). The effect and moderation of gender identity congruity: Utilizing ‘‘real women’’ advertising images. Psychology and Marketing, 26, 813–843. Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 95–103. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456. Friedman, A. (1989). Computer system development: History, organisation and implementation. Chichester, England: Wiley. Gerrig, R. J., & Zimbardo, P. (2008). Psychologie (18th ed.). Munich, Germany: Pearson Education. Gurak, L., & Bayer, N. (1994). Making gender visible: Extending feminist critiques of technology to technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 257–270.

26


Hallenbeck, S. (2013). User agency, technical communication, and the 19th-century woman bicyclist. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21, 290–306. Halpern, D. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Halpern, D. F., & LaMay, M. (2000). The smarter sex. A critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 229–246. Haüsel, H. G. (2004). Brain Script, warum Kunden kaufen. Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: Haufe-Lexware. Hausman, M. (2007). Kognitive Geschlechtsunterschiede [Cognitive sex differences]. In S. Lautenbacher, O. Gu¨ntu¨rku¨n, & M. Hausman (Eds.), Gehirn und Geschlecht (pp. 105–123). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Hedges, L., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41–45. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., Ryan, M., Frost, L. A., & Hopp, C. (1990). Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 299–324. Jaffe´, D. (2005). Der kunde ist weiblich: Was frauen wu¨nschen und wie sie bekommen, was sie wollen [The customer is female: What women want and how they get what they want]. Berlin, Germany: ECON Verlag. Jaffe´, D., & Riedel, S. (2011). Werbung fu¨r Adam und Eva: Zielgruppengerechte Ansprache durch Gender Marketing Communication [Advertisement for Adam and Eva: Adressing the target group through gender marketing communication]. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH. Johnson, L., & Learned, A. (2004). Don’t think pink. New York, NY: AMACOM. Juhl, D. (2005). Technische dokumentation: Praktische anleitungen und beispiele [Technical communication: Practical guidance and examples] (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Kempf, D. S., Laczniak, R. S., & Smith, R.E. (2006). The effects of gender on processing advertising and product trial information. Marketing Letters, 17, 5–16. Kesting, T., & Rennhak, C. (2008). Marktsegmentierung in der deutschen unternehmenspraxis [Market segmentation in German corporate practices]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer. Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 470–500. Klink, R. (2009). Gender differences in new brand name response. Marketing Letters, 20, 313–326.

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

27

Koerber, A. (2000). Toward a feminist rhetoric of technology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 58–73. Kothes, L. (2011). Grundlagen der technischen dokumentation: Anleitungen versta¨ndlich und normgerecht erstellen [Basics of technical documentation: Develop instructions comprehensibly and conforming to standards]. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Kunter, M., & Stanat, P. (2002). Soziale Kompetenz von Schu¨lerinnen und Schu¨lern [Social competence of students]. Zeitschrift fu¨r Erziehungswissenschaft, 5, 49–71. Landstro¨m, C. (2004). Queering feminist technology studies. Science Technology & Human Values, 8, 7–26. Lay, M. M. (1989). Interpersonal conflict in collaborative writing: What we can learn from gender studies. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 3(2), 5–28. Lay, M. M. (1991). Feminist theory and the redefinition of technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5, 348–370. Lay, M. M. (1994). The value of gender studies to professional communication research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8, 58–90. Lay, M. M. (2004). Feminist theory and the redefinition of technical communication. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 146–159). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, 7, 57–78. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498. Martin, B. A. S. (2003). The influence of gender on mood effects in advertising. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 249–273. Martin, C. V. (2007). The importance of self-efficacy to usability: Grounded theory analysis of a child’s toy assembly task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting, 51, 865–868. Melnyk, V., & Van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2012). Make me special: Gender differences in consumers’ responses to loyalty programs. Marketing Letters, 23, 545–559. Mijksenaar, P., & Westendorp, P. (1999). Open here: The art of instructional design. New York, NY: Joost Elffers Books. Ming-Chin, C., & Chih-Fu, W. (2011). Design for graphical manual created by computer tools in the DIY products: Exploring the effects about color and other elements of design. International Conference on Social Science and Humanity IPEDR, 5, 59–63.

28


Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability laboratories. Behaviour & Information Technology, 13, 3–8. Norman, D., & Draper, S.W. (1986). User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Oldenziel, R. (1999). Making technology masculine. Men, women and modern machines in America. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. Oudshoorn, N., Rommes, E., & Stienstra, M. (2004). Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29, 30–63. Overman Smith, E., & Thompson, I. (2002). Feminist theory in technical communication: Making knowledge claims visible. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16, 441–477. Park, K., & Nye, R. A. (1991). Destiny is anatomy. New Republic, 18, 53–57. Petzoldt, K., Schliewe, J., & Willbrandt, K. W. (2010). Sexualdimorphismen im kaufentscheidungsprozess [Sexual dimorphisms in purchase decision]. der markt, 49, 185–189. Pfannenmu¨ller, J. (2006). Ungleich ist besser [Dissimilar is better]. werben & verkaufen, 18, 30–32. Putrevu, A. (2001). Exploring the origins and Information processing differences between men and women. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10, 47–66. Ross, P. (2010). Problematizing the user in user-centered production: A new media lab meets its audiences. Social Studies of Science, 41, 251–270. Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. New York, NY: Wiley Technical Communication Library. Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201. Schraudner, M., & Lukoschat, H. (2006). Gender als innovationspotenzial fu¨r die forschung [The innovation potential of gender in research]. Stuttgart, Germany: Fraunhofer. Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2001). Principles of universal design for Instruction. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist 52, 613–629. Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal designing file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, Center for Universal Design.

Rohrer-Vanzo et al.

29

Straub, D. (2010). Wenn Anleitungen mangelhaft sind. Fachzeitschrift Technische Kommunikation, 32, 49. Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 2–30. Tebeaux, E. (1990). Toward an understanding of gender differences in written business communications: A suggested perspective for future research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 4, 25–43. Thompson, I. (1999). Women and feminism in technical communication: A qualitative content analysis of journal articles published in 1989 through 1997. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 154–178. Ulrich, I. (2013). The effect of consumer multifactorial gender and biological sex on the evaluation of cross-gender brand extensions. Psychology & Marketing, 30, 794–810. Virzi, R. A. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Journal Human Factors, 34, 457–468. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270. West, C., & Zimmermann, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society 1, 125–151. Whitley, B. E., McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1986). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions of success and failure. In J. Hyde & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-anaylsis (pp. 102–135). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Yates, S., & Littleton, K. (1999). Understanding computer game cultures: A situated approach. Information, Communication and Society, 2, 566–583. Ziefle, M., & Jakobs, E. M. (2009). Wege zur Technikfaszination: Sozialisationsverlaüfe und Interventionszeitpunkte [Ways to technical fascination: Socialization progresses and intervention times]. Munich, Germany: Springer. Zollondz, H. D. (2005). Marketing-mix. Die sieben P’s des marketings. Berlin, Germany: Cornelsen.

Author Biographies Valentina Rohrer-Vanzo received her PhD at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, and has worked on the potential of gender marketing.

30


Her focus lies on technical documentation in assembly instructions and women’s forest ownership. Tobias Stern is a private lecturer at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. His main focus is on marketing and innovation management in technological development. Elisabeth Ponocny-Seliger received her PhD on philosophy at the University of Vienna. She has worked extensively on empirical social research with a focus on gender research. Peter Schwarzbauer is a professor of market analysis for the forest sector and the forest-based industries at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. He has expertise in the areas of forecasting studies and modeling of the forest-based sector.