Determinants and Outcomes of Customers Use of Self-Service Technology in a Retail Setting

Bert Weijters Devarajan Rangarajan

Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School

Tomas Falk
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research

Niels Schillewaert
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School

Retailers are increasingly turning toward self-service technologies (SSTs) aimed at improving productivity and service quality while cutting costs. The authors identify a process model to understand the antecedents and consequences of SST usage by customers in an in-store retail setting. The model was validated on a combination of survey and observational data. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, reliability, and fun were identified as key drivers of customer attitude toward the SST. Customer attitude toward the SST predicted the actual usage of technology. The effects of SST usage on the actual time spent by customers in the store were studied. The authors investigate the impact of SST usage on customers perceptions of waiting time and, consequently, on their level of satisfaction with the shopping experience. Finally, the moderating effects of age, education, and gender are analyzed. The current study evaluates the benefits of SST introduction for both customers and retailers.

Keywords: self-service technology; retailing; consumer attitudes and behavior; technology adoption

The rapid acceptance of modern information and communication technologies in daily business activities is the most important long-term trend in the business world (Rust 2001). Consequently, retailers are increasingly considering innovative options for delivering service to their customers (Bobbitt and Dabholkar 2001; Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003; Quinn 1996). As a result, the mode of service provision and production is increasingly turning toward the use of self-service technologies (SSTs), thereby allowing customers to create a service outcome independent of directservice employee involvement (Meuter et al. 2000). Prominent examples for the increased usage of SSTs in retail settings include online shopping (Childers et al. 2001) and self-scanning systems (Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003).

Journal of Service Research, Volume 10, No. 1, August 2007 3-21 DOI: 10.1177/1094670507302990 2007 Sage Publications

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / August 2007

In addition, while online retailing is seeing an increasing level of acceptance in the marketplace, as evidenced by sales for retailers in the United States amounting to $102.1 billion in 2006, marking a 24% increase versus 2005 (comScore 2007), the usage of SST systems in retail settings has met with limited success (Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003). By introducing SSTs, retailers get the customers themselves to be productive resources involved in the service delivery process, which in turn helps retailers to overcome two major problems resulting from human interaction in traditional service encounters. First, the introduction of SSTs allows handling demand fluctuations without the expensive adjustment of employee levels (Curran, Meuter, and Surprenant 2003). Second, a major part of the service process is standardized owing to the technological interface, which leads to a more consistent service atmosphere independent of employees personality and mood (Hsieh, Yen, and Chin 2004). As a result, the introduction of SSTs opens up for retailers the potential of improving productivity and service quality while cutting costs. Nevertheless, given the resource intensity of SST introduction and retailers struggle to increase the number of SST users (Curran, Meuter, and Surprenant 2003), retailers find themselves under increased pressure to demonstrate the positive outcomes caused by the new SST offering (Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml 2004). Surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, little empirical research has gone into examining the preeconomic consequences associated with the usage of SSTs in retailing. Thus, to address this research gap, we explore the impact of SST usage on customer satisfaction with the current shopping trip. We choose customer satisfaction as an important pre-economic outcome of SST usage, as it has proven to be a strong determinant of customer retention, which in turn leads to higher profits (Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann 1994; Anderson and Mittal 2000). Furthermore, as studies building on queuing theory empirically confirm the importance of time for customers service evaluation, we further integrate perceived waiting time as a critical outcome variable (Czepiel 1980; Davis and Vollmann 1990; Taylor 1994; Tom and Lucey 1995). The importance of integrating perceived waiting time in SST research is also supported by Dabholkar (1996) and Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002), who incorporate perceived waiting time as a situational moderator of the attitude and intention formation related to SST use. In addition, we investigate whether SST use has a real effect on the total time that customers spend in-store. Expected time gain when shopping has been identified as an important motivation for customers to use SST (Bateson 1985; Childers et al. 2001), so it is essential to

evaluate the extent to which this potential benefit is realized.1 The investigation of the outcomes of SST usage is the primary contribution of the current study, as it remains an area in technology adoption that is underresearched. The outcomes under study are important in determining the impact of introducing SSTs in a retail context, both on customer satisfaction and operational dimensions like customer flow through the store (Tom and Lucey 1995). In sum, we evaluate the benefits of SST introduction for both customers and retailers. Consequently, this study helps managers to make better decisions based on more realistic expectations concerning SST use. The second key contribution of our study is the examination of the moderating influence of demographics (education level, age, and gender) on the SST-acceptance process. As demographics serve as frequently used segmentation variables, a relevant question is whether the impact of drivers of SST usage is equal across different demographic groups (Chiu, Lin, and Tang 2005). In addition, evidence for the importance of demographics is provided by the literature on technology adoption by employees within organizations, which has established the key role played by demographics in this setting (Morris and Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Morris 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003). Finally, we identify important determinants of the attitude toward SST usage and connect attitude to actual behavior. Drawing on the technology acceptance model (TAM), previous research has highlighted the role of attitude as an antecedent of SST usage. Yet little empirical research has linked attitudes toward SST use to actual behavior in a real-life setting. To address this issue, we collected a combination of survey and observational data in a retail setting (as done earlier in a study on selfscanning by Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003). This provides additional support for the relevance of the identified drivers of SST usage.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Antecedents of Attitude Toward SST A considerable part of the literature on SSTs examines determinants of SST acceptance (Childers et al. 2001; Curran, Meuter, and Surprenant 2003; Dabholkar 1994, 1996; Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002; Featherman and Pavlou 2003; Plouffe, Hulland, and Vandenbosch 2001). These studies are largely inspired by technology acceptance research including the TAM (Davis 1989) and diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers 2003). TAM is based on the theory of reasoned action (TRA), which

Weijters et al. / USE OF SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY

asserts that an attitude toward a specific behavior and subjective norm have an impact on behavioral intention, which in turn determines the behavior displayed (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). According to TAM, the amount of technology acceptance is reflected in the strength of attitude or intention toward using the technology (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warsaw 1989). An attitude can be defined as a persons negative or positive evaluation of performing the target behavior. Intentions are assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior, and thus indicate how hard people are willing to try or to what extent they are planning to make an effort, in order to perform the behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). Within TAM, Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1989) identified two fundamental constructs for forecasting the acceptance of computer technology in an organizational setting: perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Ease of use refers to the process leading to a final outcome. Attainment of the said outcome itself (rather than the process leading toward it) is represented by perceived usefulness. Perceived usefulness reflects the utilitarian view on shopping, according to which consumers are concerned with buying products in a timely and efficient manner (Childers et al. 2001; Sherry, McGrath, and Levy 1993). Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002) have suggested that the perceived usefulness dimension is not relevant for technology-based self-services in which the consumer participates but does not own (p. 186). Instead, Dabholkar and Bagozzi introduce the performance construct as a determinant of SST acceptance. According to Dabholkar and Bagozzi, performance pertains to the extent to which the SST consistently and accurately performs the expected task. In our study, we think that it is important that both of the above-mentioned perspectives of perceived usefulness play a vital role in shaping customers attitudes toward using the SSTs. Consequently, we refer to the consistency and accuracy of the SSTs as the reliability associated with using the SST, and perceived usefulness refers to the benefits customers associate with using the SSTs. We suggest that when faced with the choice of using SST, users tend to focus on the potential benefits that the technology has to offer (Bateson 1985; Meuter et al. 2000; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra 2005). This is in line with research conducted by Childers et al. (2001), who identify usefulness as a major driver of the attitude toward an SST in a retail-shopping context, reflecting the more instrumental aspects of shopping. In view of this, we suggest the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Perceived usefulness of the SST is positively related to attitude toward the SST.

As the literature review on individuals using technology reveals, the ease with which users can handle the technology positively affects their attitude toward it. This has proven to be true in research on organizational behavior (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Venkatesh et al. 2003) and in research on SSTs (Bateson 1985; Dabholkar 1996; Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002; Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003). As a result, we identify ease of use as a key independent variable affecting customer attitudes to SST. Hypothesis 2: Perceived ease of use of the SST is positively related to attitude toward the SST. Drawing on insights from the literature on SST evaluation, we further suggest integrating the perceived reliability of the technology-based self-service as a determinant of the attitude toward the SST (Dabholkar 1996; Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002; Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003). This is further supported by research on service quality in general (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry 1988), and electronic service quality in particular (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Malhotra 2005). Reliability represents a major determinant of overall electronic service quality and refers to the correct technical functioning of an SST and the accuracy of service delivery. Thus, in keeping with our arguments, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: Perceived SST reliability is positively related to attitude toward the SST. Still, as noted by Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994), if shopping trips are assessed solely on the utilitarian benefits of products or services attained, the numerous intangible and emotional aspects related to a shopping experience are excluded. Therefore, a more recent stream of research has introduced the hedonic aspect of using self-services and focused particularly on the enjoyment aspect of using technology (Childers et al. 2001; Dabholkar 1994; Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002; Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003). Enjoyment refers to the extent to which the activity of using technology is perceived to provide reinforcement in its own right, apart from any performance consequences that may be anticipated (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989). Enjoyment has been reported to influence technology adoption for technology usage at the workplace (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1992). Although the utilitarian aspect is already represented by the more goaloriented factor of perceived usefulness, enjoyment is added to reflect the hedonic aspect of using SSTs in a retail setting (Bauer, Falk, and Hammerschmidt 2006). As there is strong evidence in the literature for the significant effect that the fun aspect has on the attitude formation toward

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / August 2007

using technology-based self-services (Childers et al. 2001; Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002; Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003), we propose that customers who perceive the aspect of using SST devices as a fun way of shopping are likely to have favorable attitudes toward the technology: Hypothesis 4: Perceived fun of using the SST is positively related to attitude toward the SST. Use of SST The studies conducted by Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee (2003), Venkatesh et al. (2003), and Meuter et al. (2005) go beyond the focus on attitudes for explaining SST acceptance and investigate actual SST use. Likewise, and in line with Micks (2003) call to combine mental processes with actual behavior, we link the self-reported attitude toward the usage of SST to observed use of the SST. We hypothesize that: Hypothesis 5: Attitude toward the use of SST is positively related to the actual use of the SST. Moderating Effects In marketing research, the conceptualization of innovativeness builds on psychological research concerning optimal stimulation level (Berlyne 1978). Optimal stimulation level refers to the observation that organisms may engage in activities merely for the sake of having exciting and novel experiences. Importantly, there are individual differences in the extent to which organisms in general and people in particular, feel intrinsically rewarded by such behavior. Exploratory tendencies thus motivate behavior but not equally so among different individuals. Building on the work related to optimal stimulation as well as the work by Rogers (1962), Midgley and Dowling (1978), Raju (1980), Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1992), Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996) translated these findings to a consumption context and proposed the concept of exploratory consumer buying behavior, later conceptualized as consumer innovativeness (Steenkamp, ter Hofstede, and Wedel 1999). Hirschman (1980) proposed the concept of novelty seeking, or the desire to seek out new stimuli. It is the latter aspect of innovativeness that has been pointed out as being especially relevant in the context of SSTs (Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002). Within the innovativeness paradigm it has been common to focus on products and technologies that are particularly new. However, as SSTs are gaining acceptance, they are automatically losing some of their newness. Consequently, SSTs are no longer new by

necessity, and their perceived newness is becoming more and more variable. For this reason, we posit newness as a variable attribute (rather than a given or constant) that may have a positive valence for some but a negative valence for others (Blythe 1999). The evaluation of newness consequently contributes to the overall attitude toward SST. In general, consumers preference for newness (as an aspect of innovativeness) has been found to vary as a function of demographic variables (Im, Bayus, and Mason 2003; Robertson and Gatignon 1991). In general, we believe that it is important to study how the technology-usage process differs across demographic segments, as it has been done in an organizational context (Morris and Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Morris 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003). A better understanding of the moderating effects of demographics has both practical and theoretical value. Although focusing on personality traits of users of SST is interesting (Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002), demographic variables are more readily identifiable in practice and therefore more actionable2 (Mittal and Kamakura 2001; Wedel and Kamakura 2000). Because generalization of specific domain-based findings to different settings is at the heart of theory development, we test whether findings from organizational behavior apply to the use of SSTs by customers in a retail setting. As suggested above, as demographics are frequently used as segmentation variables, a relevant question is whether the determinants of SST use differ depending on the levels of education, gender, and age. Apart from the study conducted by Venkatesh et al. (2003) and Meuter et al. (2005), the issue of demographic influences on SST use hasnt been fully covered yet by the existing literature. An understanding of demographic differences in perceptions and attitudes toward using SSTs in a real-life retail setting is valuable for the management of SSTs, as demographics are generally acknowledged to profoundly influence response to marketing strategies (Meyers-Levy 1988; Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1991; Mittal and Kamakura 2001).
EDUCATION

People differ in their sensitivity to time-related issues (Berry, Seiders, and Grewal 2002; Hui and Tse 1996). Durrande-Moreau and Usunier (1999) indicated that people who have more highly qualified jobs and education levels tend to display a more quantitative time orientation, as reflected in the statement time is money. We hypothesize that more highly educated people will try harder to optimize their time allocation and thus feel more time pressure. This will lead them to attach more importance to the time gain that comes with using SST.

Weijters et al. / USE OF SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY

Hypothesis 6a: The positive relation between perceived usefulness and attitude toward using the SST is stronger among more highly educated customers than among less educated customers. We also suggest that people exposed to higher levels of education are likely to have had more exposure to technology, not only at their workplace but also in the course of their day-to-day activities. In addition, the nature of the task at hand and its interaction with technology has been found to play an important role in the perceptions of the technology among individuals in an organizational setting (Rangarajan, Jones, and Chin 2005). In a retail setting, the task of using the technology is only secondary to the main issue of shopping for items. Given this, in conjunction with the likelihood of educated individuals being more exposed to technology, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 6b: The positive relation between perceived ease of use and attitude toward using the SST is weaker among more highly educated customers than among less educated customers. Based on an extensive review of the literature, Rogers (2003) concluded that earlier adopters have more years of formal education than do later adopters. As argued above, the defining characteristic of innovations obviously is their newness. Newness as an attribute may itself have some utility for customers (Blythe 1999), and apparently this is specifically the case for the highly educated, because this group has been found to more readily adopt new technologies (Im, Bayus, and Mason 2003). Taken together, these lines of thoughts lead to the hypothesis that perceived newness of an SST will positively affect attitudes of more highly educated people toward the SST yet negatively affect attitudes of less educated people toward the SST. Hypothesis 6c: The relation between perceived newness of an SST and attitude toward using the SST is positive for more highly educated people and negative for less educated people. The effect of education on user attitude toward technology has been documented in the organizational behavior literature as affecting an individuals attitude toward technologies in the workplace (Morris and Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Morris 2000). However, to the best of our knowledge, little research has focused on the effect of education levels on subsequent usage of the technology. In line with Evanschitzky and Wunderlich (2006), we suppose that people with higher levels of education perform more comprehensive information gathering and

processing efforts than less educated people. This is because those who are more well-educated draw on more information prior to decision making, whereas less educated people rely more on fewer information cues (Capon and Burke 1980). Considering the important role of information processing in the formation of attitudes (Hoyer and MacInnis 2004), and the fact that better educated consumers feel more comfortable when dealing with and relying on new information than people with lower educational attainments (Homburg and Giering 2001), we suggest the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 6d: Actual usage of the SST is more strongly related to attitude toward using the SST for customers with higher education levels than for customers with lower education levels.
AGE

In a workplace setting, Morris and Venkatesh (2000) show that the relation between attitude and intention is not equally strong for all people. More specifically, they find that intention to use technology is more strongly driven by attitude among younger people as compared to older people. We propose that this finding is transferable to the attitude-behavior link in a retail setting and suggest: Hypothesis 7: Younger customers actual usage of the SST is more strongly related to their attitude toward using the SST than is older customers actual usage of the SST to their attitude toward using the SST.
GENDER

In recent years, an increasing body of research has focused on gender differences in shopping behavior. It has been found that males and females employ different information-processing strategies while shopping (Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran 1991; Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1991). Some researchers have suggested that females generally show higher involvement and more thorough information processing in shopping than do males (Laroche et al. 2000; Laroche et al. 2003). This might possibly translate into different priorities while shopping in that males may want to minimize time and effort invested, whereas females may want to minimize distraction from the shopping task. In relation to SST use, this would imply that males attach more importance to making their shopping more efficient by using SST, but females would not want to complicate their shopping task performance by having to use the SST. Evidence from a different context leads to similar conclusions. Venkatesh and Morris (2000) studied gender differences

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / August 2007

in the context of technology acceptance in the workplace: They found that compared to women, mens technology usage decisions were more strongly influenced by their perceptions of usefulness. In contrast, women were more strongly influenced by perceptions of ease of use (p. 115). Based on these two lines of reasoning, we hypothesize a moderating effect of gender on the importance of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the formation of attitude and intention. Thus, Hypothesis 8a: As compared to women, mens attitude toward using SST is more strongly related to perceived usefulness. Hypothesis 8b: As compared to men, womens attitude toward using SST is more strongly related to perceived ease of use. Outcomes of SST Usage As the literature review shows, research on exploring SST acceptance is a growing area of interest. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, most studies, except for Meuter et al. (2005) and Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee (2003), have not focused on investigating postusage behavior. This has to be seen as a major limitation, as retailers have to show the economic consequences of their actions. Thus, the resource-intensive introduction of SSTs must be made financially accountable by showing the contribution for enhancing a firms financial performance (Rust et al. 2004). With customer satisfaction being a major driver of customer retention and profit, we integrate this variable as an important outcome of SST usage in our model (Anderson, Fornell, and Mazvancheryl 2004; Anderson and Mittal 2000). As waiting time still remains a critical factor to customers shopping experience, we integrate this measure along with customer satisfaction as an important outcome variable (Davis and Vollmann 1990; Tom and Lucey 1995). Zeithaml and Bitner (2003) suggested that customers often look for quick and efficient service and do not expect to spend a lot of time waiting. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the effect of SST use on the perceived waiting time. We thereby follow a time perception approach (Hornik 1984, p. 617) rather than measuring waiting time on the basis of standard measurement characteristics. This is in line with Tom and Lucey (1995), who promote that perceived time, more than objective time, seems to form the basis of the reality for consumer experience and behavior. The construct of perceived waiting time seems also to offer more insights from a managerial point of view. Managers often face external limitations of ways of decreasing objective waiting times because of factors like physical space, which limits the

maximum amount of possible check stands or increased customer traffic in rush hours (Tom and Lucey 1995). In the domain of SST, the perceived reduction in waiting time during the service experience is the main advantage delivered by using SSTs (Bateson 1985; Meuter et al. 2000). In a retail setting, SST delivers its main advantage by reducing waiting times at check-out (Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003). As a result, we argue that SST users are likely to have lower perceived waiting times in the check-out counters.3 Hypothesis 9: SST use has a negative effect on perceived waiting time. Waiting times have been shown to strongly affect evaluations of service encounters by customers (Taylor 1994; Zeithaml and Bitner 2003). Durrande-Moreau and Usunier (1999) noted, The wait is a minor but significant part of the overall service encounter that influences customers global evaluation of the service (p. 177). In retail settings, customer perceived waiting time has been identified as a critical contributing factor to customer satisfaction with the retail outlet (Pruyn and Smidts 1998; Tom and Lucey 1995). When SST users and nonusers perceive that they spend less time waiting at the counter, they exhibit higher levels of satisfaction with the overall shopping experience (Davis and Vollmann 1990). Consequently, we believe that the perceived waiting time will affect customer satisfaction with the shopping experience. Hypothesis 10: Perceived waiting time is negatively related to overall satisfaction with the shopping trip. Because one of the primary reasons for consumers to use SSTs is to save time, we expect the above-mentioned relation to be even stronger among SST users (Childers et al. 2001). This indicates that SST users can be expected to attach more importance to perceived waiting time, implying a stronger relation between perceived waiting time and satisfaction. We therefore suggest a moderating role of SST use on the perceived waiting timesatisfaction relationship. Hypothesis 11: The relationship between perceived waiting time and satisfaction will be stronger for SST users than for nonusers. Although the effect of SST use on perceived waiting time is especially important for customers (as it is presumed to affect their satisfaction levels), and from an operational point of view, it is also crucial to know whether SST affects the actual time that is spent in the store. In other words, the question is whether using SST is indeed

Weijters et al. / USE OF SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY

FIGURE 1 Antecedents and Consequences of SST Use

less time consuming and more efficient. This is important because it affects the total number of customers in the store at any given moment and, consequently, the capacity that is needed in-store (Tom and Lucey 1995). It is believed that SST use reduces the time needed for shopping (Bateson 1985; Childers et al. 2001). Hypothesis 12: SST use leads to less time spent in-store. To ensure that the effect of SST use on the described outcomes is not because of the operation of confounding variables, the following two control variables are included: the number of items the customer purchases and number of customers at check-out. In particular, these two situational variables may affect perceived waiting time and actual total time spent in-store. Also, they may affect these outcome variables to a different extent for users and nonusers of SST. All the relations proposed above are summarized in Figure 1. EMPIRICAL STUDY Data Collection
SETTING

To test our model, we collected data in stores of a grocery retail chain in Western Europe. At the time of data

collection, the self-scanning option had been in place for at least 1 year in each of the stores. The self-scanners were hand-held devices that were made available on a shelf at the entrance of the store. Customers walking in could choose between two options: either use a self-scanning device to aid them in their shopping trip or shop in the traditional method without the self-scanning device. Customers choosing the self-scanning option would then use the device throughout their shopping trip to scan the barcodes on all items they selected from the shelves. At the check-out counter, self-scanner users could then proceed to separate lanes, where their bill was directly computed based on the purchases read by the device. The customers would then make the payments to a cashier at a check-out counter specifically reserved for SST users and, following this, would exit the store. In contrast, customers who did not use self-scanning devices would proceed directly to the check-out counter, have the products scanned by a cashier, and subsequently pay the cashier for the goods purchased. Self-scanners are available only for customers in possession of a loyalty card. This policy has several reasons. First, the option to use self-scanning is considered an incentive to subscribe to the loyalty card system. Second, because personnel check only a sample of self-scanning customers purchases at check-out, the retailer reserves self-scanning for customers it chooses to trust. Finally, the retailer is constructing a behavioral database, and only cardholders can be readily identified to store their track record in

10

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / August 2007

terms of self-scanning use. Consequently, only loyal customers took part in this research.
SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

Six teams of research associates simultaneously collected data in six stores of the grocery retailer. Data were collected during a 3-day period to ensure a representative cross-section of shoppers. Data collection consisted of two stages. In the first stage, research associates addressed shoppers on entering the store. A questionnaire with closed-ended questions was used for this data collection, which took place at the entrance. The next stage of data collection was after the customers had done their shopping and had checked out their items. They were requested to participate in an exit survey with closed-ended questions. The entry survey contained two filter questions to ensure that (a) we did not include people who were unaware of self-scanning devices and (2) only customers with a loyalty card filled out our survey, given the retailers policy of offering self-scanning devices only to loyal customers. On provision of acceptable responses for the filter questions, the main questionnaire was administered to the respondents. The questionnaire consisted of a series of items measuring the perceived attributes of the SST as well as attitudes toward the SST. In addition, the demographic variables, educational level, year of birth, and gender were measured. Participants were assigned unique identification numbers to enable us to match their responses between the entry and exit surveys. Also, the exact times of the entry and exit surveys were recorded. This allowed us to (a) measure the total amount of time spent in-store and (b) match the questionnaire data with observational data collected in the following way. At every 1-minute interval, an accomplice recorded the number of non-SST users waiting at the cash registers. This number was then used as a proxy for crowding and is henceforth referred to as the number of customers at check-out. At the end of the shopping experience, the identification numbers of the participants were recorded to enable us to match their responses at entry and exit. The respondents use or nonuse of self-scanning was recorded. Respondents then answered additional questions about their perceptions of how long they waited in line (including processing time of purchases at check-out) and about their levels of satisfaction with the shopping experience. Also, the exact number of purchases was noted (based on the bill). Scale Design Because our study focuses on use of a particular SST in Europe, we initiated a qualitative stage of research,

which served two purposes. Our first purpose was to check whether relevant variables had to be included in the model in addition to those apparent from previous studies: specifically, in the attitudinal model and the outcomes model. Our second purpose was to become familiar with the way customers feel, think, and communicate about this issue. To this end, we did face-to-face interviews with a convenience sample of 30 customers. Of these respondents, 10 were male. Furthermore, 9 respondents were aged 20 through 29, 8 from 30 through 39, 9 from 40 through 49, and 4 were 50 years and older. In our sample, 13 respondents had used self-scanning in the past year. Based on the literature and the qualitative interviews, we formulated indicators for the variables in the conceptual model. Attitudes were measured using a 3item, 5-point semantic-differential scale. Perceived attributes of the SST were measured by means of 5-point, Likert-type scales based on Dabholkar (1994), Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002), and the qualitative interviews.
ENTRY QUESTIONNAIRE

Perceived usefulness was assessed by 3 items capturing efficiency, speed of shopping with self-scanning and SST use effect on waiting time at the cash register. Perceived ease of use was measured by 2 items that captured aspects concerning user friendliness and effort related to using SSTs. Reliability was quantified with 3 items capturing the extent to which self-scanning is expected to work well and have a faultless result. Perceived fun was measured by 2 items capturing to what extent the use of self-scanning is perceived as being entertaining and enjoyable. Perceived newness was measured using three 5-point semantic differentials. Items of all attitudinal and attribute variables are presented in Appendix A. Use of self-scanning was observed and noted as a dummy variable, with 0 = no use of self-scanning and 1 = use of self-scanning. Age was measured by asking respondents year of birth and subtracting it from the year of data collection. Gender was observed and noted as a dichotomous variable in which 0 = male and 1 = female. Level of education was measured by means of an open question probing for the number of years of formal education after primary school.
EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE

Satisfaction with the shopping trip was captured in terms of overall, cumulative satisfaction on a scale ranging from 0 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied; see Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann 1994). Perceived waiting time was measured as the perception of how many minutes the respondent had been waiting at the

Weijters et al. / USE OF SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY

11

cash register (Hornik 1984). Perceived waiting time included the processing of the purchases. We consciously used single-item measures in the exit survey to limit the burden on our respondents. This way, we intended to minimize nonresponse to the exit survey as well as bias because of irritation. Other researchers have made the same choice in a similar context (Taylor 1994) and perceived waiting time can be argued to be measurable by a 1-item measure (Rossiter 2002). The number of actual purchases was noted based on the customers check-out bill.

TABLE 1 Shared Variance and Average Variance Extracted

SV/AVE PU PEU REL FUN NEW ATT PU 0.50 0.22 0.29 0.06 0.11 0.39 PEU REL FUN NEW ATT

0.70 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.34

0.54 0.00 0.06 0.13

0.84 0.01 0.33

0.64 0.07

0.84

RESULTS Sample A total of 1,492 shoppers were approached for participation in the survey. Of these, 709 people responded favorably, giving us a response rate of 47.1%. Furthermore, 632 respondents who answered favorably possessed a loyalty card (this was a first filter). After further filtering out respondents who were not familiar with self-scanning, this number dropped to 610 (this was a second filter). Each respondent was issued a ticket with a unique identification number, and this ticket was then collected by a second team of research associates awaiting respondents at the exit of the store. Of the 610 respondents, 554 people (90.8% of entry participants) participated in the exit survey. Out of these 554 responses at the exit, 548 responses could be matched with the same customers response at the entry, because six customers failed to provide their numbered ticket. In the end, 497 questionnaires contained complete data of customers who had purchased at least one product and could be used in the analysis. In this sample, 64.8% were female and 35.2% male. Also, 62.6% had received education after secondary school. As for age, 1.0% were aged 12 to 19; 21.3%, 20 to 29; 21.1%, 30 to 39; 28.2%, 40 to 49; 18.5%, 50 to 59, 7.4%, 60 to 69; 1.6%, 70 to 79; and .8%, 80 to 89 years. Finally, 36.2% used self-scanning during the current visit to the store. This figure lies in the normal range of SST use rates commonly observed in the chain under investigation (this was stated thus by management). Data Analysis
TEST
OF

NOTE: PU = perceived usefulness; PEU = perceived ease of use; REL = reliability; FUN = fun; NEW = newness; ATT = attitude. On the diagonal, average variance extracted of each factor is displayed; the other values display shared variance (i.e., r2) between two factors (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

confirmatory factor analysis on attitude, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, fun, reliability, and newness in MPlus version 3.13 (Muthn and Muthn 2004), using the MLR estimation (robust maximum likelihood). Although the chi-square test is significant, 2 (89) = 140.16, p = .0004, the alternative indices compare favorably to common criteria (Hu and Bentler 1999): CFI = 0.984; TLI = 0.979; RMSEA = 0.034; SRMR = 0.032. Furthermore, there are no reasons to suspect that specific model modifications would enhance the quality of the parameter estimates. Table 1 provides a detailed evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity by listing each factors average variance extracted and the shared variance between each pair of factors (Fornell and Larcker 1981). As can be read from this table, for all factors the average variance extracted was higher than their shared variances, providing evidence of good construct and discriminant validity. The correlation matrix of the attitudinal items is reported in Appendix B.
TEST
OF

CORE MODEL

ATTITUDINAL MEASUREMENT MODEL

Before testing the structural model of interest, we evaluate the quality of the measurement model of the attitude and beliefs constructs. To this end, we perform a

Building further on the above measurement model, we test the complete core model as depicted in Panel I of Figure 1 (i.e., without the moderating effects of the demographic variables). To this end, we specify a structural equation model in which attitude is regressed on perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, fun, and reliability (for completeness, newness was included as a control variable). Use is regressed on attitude by means of a logistic regression such that the regression weight, B, is interpreted as the increase in the log odds of using selfscanning versus not using self-scanning for a unit increase in attitude (as measured by a 5-point scale). The corresponding odds increase is B exponentiated, whereby odds refers to the ratio of the probability of using selfscanning to the probability of not using self-scanning

12

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / August 2007

TABLE 2 Regression Weights of the Core Model (Panel I in Figure 1)

DV Attitude (R2 = .55) IV B 0.325 0.292 0.143 0.195 1.994 SE 0.061 0.069 0.079 0.048 0.248 t Value 5.361** 4.252** 1.798* 4.032** 8.052** H H1 H2 H3 H4 H5

Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use Reliability Perceived fun Usea (R2 = .62) Attitude

NOTE: DV = dependent variable; IV = independent variable; B = unstandardized regression weight; SE = standard error; H = Hypothesis. Factors are expressed in the same metric as the original items by fixing one factor loading to 1. a. The regression weight between use and attitude is a logit term (Muthn and Muthn 2004). Here, a 1-point increase in attitude means the customer is 7.34 (= Exp[1.994]) times as likely to use the SST as a customer without such an increase. *p .05. **p .01, one-sided probability tests.

(Muthn and Muthn 2004). The unstandardized regression weights are presented in Table 2. It is clearly evident from the table that users attitudes toward the SST are significantly affected (p < .05; onesided) by perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, reliability, and fun. Thus, Hypotheses 1 through 4 were supported. In addition, our results indicate that user attitudes toward SST positively and significantly affected the actual use of self-scanning technology (p < .001), thereby supporting Hypothesis 5.
TEST
OF

MODERATING EFFECTS

Next, we test the moderating effects of gender, age, and education level on the core model (see Panel II of Figure 1). In choosing a method for these tests, we take into account the following characteristics of our data and model. First, although gender is a dichotomous variable, age and education are measured at a ratio level and should be treated as such (MacCallum et al. 2002). Second, the moderating variables are nonexperimental in nature and are correlated to one another (age and education have a Pearson correlation of 0.21). Finally, the antecedents of attitude and attitude itself are latent variables, measured with error (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Therefore, we define interaction terms of each latent variable with each demographic variable. To make this operation feasible from a practical and computational perspective, we subsequently test separate models, each of which contains the three interactions between all demographics and one latent variable as well as the main effects of the demographic variables and all remainder beliefs. To illustrate, the first such model contains all variables of the core model, the demographics, and the following interactions: (a) perceived usefulness by

education level, (b) perceived usefulness by age, and (c) perceived usefulness by gender. In these analyses, education level and age are mean-centered. Also, note that gender is coded as a dummy with a 0 for males and a 1 for females. Consequently, the main-effect regression weights correspond to the estimated average effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable for males of average age and education level in the sample. The interaction terms can be interpreted as the effect that a unit increase in the demographic has on the former regression weight. We include interaction terms with all demographics even if not all of them are hypothesized. The reason for this is that not doing so might lead to spurious effects (Draper and Smith 1998). For example, if an effect is hypothesized for education but not for age, not including age might lead education to capture the effect that is, in reality, because of age. Table 3 presents the parameter estimates based on the interaction models, again estimated using the MLR estimator in MPlus 3.13. Age and education are expressed in units of 10 years. Although it was not the intended purpose of this study, we note that none of the demographic main effects is significant (these effects are not reported). As for the moderating effects, with a sample size of less than 500, power is rather limited (McQuitty 2004). Although this reduces the number of significant interaction regression coefficients, leading to nonrejection of most null hypotheses (and thus no support for most of our directed hypotheses), it does focus attention on effects that are substantial. Three hypothesized moderation effects are significant (Hypotheses 6c, 6d, and 8a). The other moderation hypotheses were not supported (Hypotheses 6a, 6b, 7, and 8b). First, Figure 2 illustrates the relation between perceived usefulness and attitude toward the SST for female and male customers. In line with Hypothesis 8a, perceived usefulness is less important for female customers than it is for male customers, with unstandardized regression weights of 0.27 and 0.42, respectively. The former figure is obtained by adding the interaction coefficient of the gender dummy (0.15) to the main effect (0.42; see Table 3). Second, Figure 3 depicts the effect of perceived newness on attitude toward the SST for three different groups of customers: those with minimal education in our sample (0 years after primary school), those with average education (8 years after primary school), and those with the maximum number of years of formal education (16 years after primary school, the maximum level observed in our sample). The effect of newness on attitude toward the SST is significantly moderated by education level. More specifically, in line with Hypothesis 6c, this relationship is more positive among the highly educated. Note that the apparent absence of a main effect is because of the presence of a negative effect for some customers

Weijters et al. / USE OF SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY

13

TABLE 3 Interaction Effects: Unstandardized Regression Weights

DV Attitude IV Perceived Usefulness Moderator B SE t Value H

Main effectb Education levelc Femaled Main effectb Education levelc Femaled Main effectb Education levelc Main effectb Education levelc Agee

0.416 0.071 0.145 0.368 0.012 0.117 0.110 0.352 2.183 0.899 0.001

0.079 0.097 0.074 0.091 0.144 0.080 0.080 0.184 0.406 0.493 0.137

5.30** 0.74 1.95* 4.03** 0.09 1.45 1.38 1.91* 5.38** 1.83* 0.01

H1 H6a H8a H2 H6b H8b H6c H5 H6d H7

Perceived ease of use

Newness Use Attitudea

NOTE: DV = dependent variable; IV = independent variable; B = unstandardized regression weight; SE = standard error of the estimate; H = Hypothesis. a. The regression weight between use and attitude is a logit term (Muthn and Muthn 2004). b. Main effects of the moderated independent variables are reported to enable interpretation of the moderating effects. c. Education level is expressed in units of 10 years of formal education after primary school. d. Female refers to a dummy variable, with 1 for female customers and 0 for male customers. e. Age is expressed in units of 10 years. *p .05. **p .01, one-sided probability tests.

FIGURE 2 Differential Impact of Perceived Usefulness on Attitude Toward the SST by Gender

NOTE: Both the X and Y axis are mean-centered and scaled as their highest loading indicator (hence, the mean is zero and the scale is identical to the five-point items in the questionnaire).

(with lower education levels) combined with a positive effect for others (with higher education levels). Finally, as proposed in Hypothesis 6d, the impact of attitude on use of the SST increases with education level. The relationship between attitude toward the SST and the probability of using the SST by education level is shown graphically in Figure 4. In line with the logistic regression specification of use on attitude, the dependent variable (use/nonuse) is expressed as a probability.

This figure shows that the probability of using the SST given a neutral to positive attitude is much higher for highly educated customers than it is for customers with a lower education: The graph for the highly educated crosses the 0.50 probability earlier on and increases to the 0.75 probability in a steeper fashion. The graph representing the probability of using the SST for the less educated never reaches the 0.90 probability, even for very positive levels of attitude. This indicates that, in this

14

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / August 2007

FIGURE 3 Differential Impact of Newness on Attitude Toward the SST by Education Level

NOTE: Both the X and Y axis are mean-centered and scaled as their highest loading indicator (hence, the mean is zero and the scale is identical to the five-point items in the questionnaire).

FIGURE 4 Impact of Attitude Toward the SST on the Probability of Using the SST by Education Level

NOTE: The main effect of education, though insignificant (B = 0.424, SE = 0.388; t-value = 1.094) is accounted for in this graph since it was part of the model on which the estimates are based.

segment, attitude toward the SST is not sufficient to explain use of the SST. Outcomes of SST Use To evaluate the impact of SST use on shopping outcomes, we specify a path model as presented in Figure 1, Panel III. Parameters and model fit indices are estimated using the maximum likelihood estimator. Use versus nonuse of SST is used as a grouping variable. This allows us to simultaneously study the direct effects (mean and

intercept differences) and the moderating effects (differences in regression weights) of SST use on shopping outcomes. In the model, there are three endogenous variables: satisfaction, perceived waiting time, and total time spent in-store. Satisfaction is regressed on perceived waiting time; perceived waiting time is in turn regressed on the exogenous variables number of purchases and number of customers at check-out. Similarly, total time spent in-store is also regressed on the exogenous variables number of purchases and number of customers at check-out.

Weijters et al. / USE OF SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY

15

TABLE 4 Results of the Exploratory Analysis: Regression Weights of Perceived Waiting Time and Actual Time in Store on the Situational Antecedents (Panel III of Figure 1)
Non-SST Users DV Perceived waiting time Perceived waiting time Actual time in-store Actual time in-store IV No. of items purchased No. of people at check-out No. of people at check-out No. of items purchased Estimate 0.019 0.058 0.105 0.591 SE 0.008 0.011 0.064 0.045 t Value 2.411* 5.281** 1.645 13.003** Estimate 0.009 0.033 0.040 0.655 SST Users SE 0.010 0.011 0.065 0.061 t Value 0.922 3.085** 0.622 10.782** Difference t Test 2.206* 1.613 0.715 0.836

NOTE: DV = dependent variable; IV = independent variable; SE = standard error. *p .05. **p .01, two-sided tests.

We simultaneously estimate the parameters for the model in both groups (users and nonusers). The resulting chi-square value indicates acceptable fit (i.e., the misfit between this model and the data is insignificant: 2 (6) = 5.63, p = .466. The parameters of interest are the intercepts of satisfaction, perceived waiting time, and total time spent in-store as well as the regression weight of satisfaction on perceived waiting time. A between-group difference in intercept would indicate that the use of SST leads to different values in perceived waiting time, satisfaction, and/or total time spent in-store after controlling for covariates. A difference in the regression weight would indicate a different impact of perceived waiting time on satisfaction across groups. None of the intercepts of satisfaction, perceived waiting time, and total time spent in-store are significantly different for the two groups. More specifically, perceived waiting time for non-SST users averages 0.88 minutes (SE = 0.31) versus 1.23 minutes (SE = 0.38) for SST users, resulting in a nonsignificant difference t test (t = 0.71, n.s.). Hence, the data do not lend support to Hypothesis 9. The intercepts (standard errors, or SEs) of satisfaction (on a 10-point scale) for the non-SST users and SST users, respectively, are 8.70 (0.08) and 8.75 (0.11), also resulting in a nonsignificant difference test (t = 0.35, n.s.). Finally, the intercepts (SEs) of actual total time spent in-store for non-SST users versus SST users are 12.14 (1.82) versus 12.12 (2.30), resulting in a nonsignificant difference test (t = 0.01, n.s.). Hence, there is no support for Hypothesis 12. This indicates that there is no direct effect of SST use on any of the three endogenous variables after controlling for covariates. As noted in Hypothesis 10, the effect of perceived waiting time on satisfaction is negative in both groups. However, in line with Hypothesis 11, satisfaction is more negatively affected by perceived waiting time among SST users. Specifically, the respective regression weights (and related standard errors and t values) for nonusers

and users of SST were 0.120 (SE = 0.022; t = 5.32) and 0.198 (SE = 0.040; t = 4.99), resulting in a difference t test of 1.72 (one-sided p = .043). These regression weights reflect the decrease in satisfaction for every minute of perceived waiting time. Based on our observations in the retail setting under investigation, we further explore the potential moderating effect of SST use or nonuse on the relations between perceived waiting time and actual total time in store, on one hand, and their two situational antecedents that served as control variables in the above analyses, on the other hand (i.e., the number of items purchased and the number of customers at check-out). The regression weight estimates of the time-related outcomes on the situational antecedents are presented in Table 4. The results indicate some significant differences between SST users and nonusers. In particular, perceived waiting time is less affected by number of purchases for SST users. It is rather self-evident that SST users gain time at the check-out because their purchases have already been scanned during shopping. For non-SST users, on the other hand, an employee individually scans all purchases at the cash register. Consequently, each product will take time to scan for non-SST users, whereas this is not the case for SST users. Among non-SST users, perceived waiting time increases by approximately 1 second per product that was purchased. Among SST users, this effect is not significantly different from zero. The effect of number of people at check-out on perceived waiting time is slightly less for SST users, but the difference does not reach significance (two-sided p = .107). Perceived waiting time may be a function of the number of other customers who have to wait in line at check-out. Because check-out is much more efficient at the SST cash registers, it is reasonable that this impact would be less for SST users. However, the effect is small in the current data set. Remarkably, this slight reduction in the dependence on situational variables that is found for perceived waiting

16

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / August 2007

time is not significant for actual total time spent in-store. In other words, although the effect of both number of people at check-out and number of items purchased on actual time in-store is smaller among SST users than among non-SST users, the difference is not significant.

DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to propose and empirically test a comprehensive process model of SST use by customers in a real-life retail setting. As part of the model, key drivers of SST use along with outcomes associated with the same were identified and studied in a single shopping trip. We drew on previous literature on SST use (Dabholkar 1996; Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002; Dabholkar, Bobbitt, and Lee 2003) to identify the drivers of SST use and also replicated and extended the findings of Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002). We also built on previous research by focusing on the moderating role of demographic variables on some key relationships in our process model. In the model, perceived attributes of the SST were posited to relate to attitude toward using the SST. Drawing on the literature on the adoption of innovations and building on the work by Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002), the following attributes of SSTs were taken into account as direct antecedents of SST adoption in our model: (a) perceived usefulness, (b) perceived ease of use, (c) reliability, and (d) fun associated with using the SST. Apart from that, we modeled newness as a variable that may have a positive valence for some customers, although it may show a negative valence for others (Blythe 1999). This corresponds to the fact that consumers preference for newness varies depending on demographic variables (Im, Bayus, and Mason 2003; Robertson and Gatignon 1991). Finally, we also studied the effect of attitude toward SST on the actual use of the SST. Our results suggested that all four hypothesized direct effects on the attitude of customers toward using the SST were highly significant. Customers attitudes toward the SST, in turn, had a significant impact on actual SST usage. Subsequently, in specific conditions discussed below, using the SST affected the perceived waiting time at the cash register, which in turn was an important antecedent of customer satisfaction with the shopping trip. Our results also indicated that perceived usefulness demonstrated the highest explanatory power on attitude. We think that this is interesting considering the fact that Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002) did not include this variable. A possible explanation for this could have been their definition of perceived usefulness of SSTs. In our study, we operationalized perceived usefulness to reflect the perceptions of benefits (e.g., time gain) that customers

are likely to attribute to the SST. Also, we operationalized the performance attribute as studied by Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002) to reflect the reliability associated with the SST. Thus, we not only looked at the perceived usefulness of the SST but also at how the customers looked at the reliability or performance of the SST. We also think that our results may differ because of the context of a real-life retail setting in which our study took place as compared to the experimental setting in a restaurant as used by Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002). In addition, the role of perceived usefulness of technology has been demonstrated in real-life settings before, and our results are in keeping with these results (Davis 1989; Venkatesh and Davis 2000). Hence, we believe that further research on adoption behavior of SST must also account for the effects of perceived usefulness associated by users with the technology. A major contribution of our study is the extension of previous research by focusing on not only actual usage of SST by customers but also on the corresponding outcomes associated with using the SST. In doing so, it is essential to clarify the meaning of the results concerning the shopping outcomes for non-SST users versus SST users. The findings regarding the intercept differences show that no differences occur between non-SST users versus SST users in terms of perceived waiting time and total time spent in-store when the number of items purchased and the number of customers at check-out is kept at zero. Similarly, no difference in satisfaction occurs between non-SST users and SST users when perceived waiting time is kept constant (at zero). However, among non-SST users, perceived waiting time increases as a function of the number of items purchased (and slightly but insignificantly with the number of customers at check-out), whereas this is not the case for SST users. Hence, the advantage of SST in terms of perceived waiting times is realized only when buying many items, probably more so in crowded conditions. Also, as expected, perceived waiting time negatively affects satisfaction with the shopping trip. It is interesting that this effect of perceived waiting time is stronger for users than for nonusers of the SST. Remarkably, however, the actual total time spent in store is not affected by SST use or nonuse, even when buying many products in crowded conditions. This indicates that the use of SST does not lead to an actual time gain overall. SST users probably spend more time shopping around. Another main contribution of our study was the focus on the moderating effects of demographic variables on the previously described base model. It should be noted that no main effects of demographics on SST-related beliefs and attitudes were observed. However, in line with the focus of the current research, our findings indicated

Weijters et al. / USE OF SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY

17

that demographic variables did seem to affect some of the relationships in the main process model. In other words, demographic segments will most probably hold largely similar beliefs regarding SSTs, but they will weight their beliefs differently when deciding whether or not to use the technology. Although research on the use of technology in organizations has focused on the role of demographic variables (Morris and Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Morris 2000), in the domain of SST acceptance, research still remains limited. Although age did not show any moderating effects, our study serves to highlight a key role played by education and gender of the customers. In particular, education level and gender of customers affect the importance that they attach to certain features of SSTs when evaluating the technology. Specifically, perceived newness has a widely varying effect on attitudes toward SST depending on the level of education of the customers. Among less educated people, it is negatively related to attitude, but among more highly educated customers, it is positively related to attitude. Thus, more highly educated customers are likely to appreciate the innovativeness of the technology, whereas less educated customers might rather avoid novelty of such technologies. This finding implies that the highly educated are more likely to adopt SST when it is still perceived as something new. For less educated customers, SST may be more successful if the technology is presented as a tried and safe solution rather than a novel experience. Research in an organizational setting has found that age moderates the process leading to adoption of technology. Although Morris and Venkatesh (2000) showed the attitudeintention relation is stronger among younger people than older people, in our study we actually compare younger and older respondents in terms of the attitudebehavior link. Contrary to our expectations, we find that age does not moderate the attitudeuse relation. However, education level does moderate this relation. For customers with a higher level of education, attitude is a better predictor of use than for customers with a lower level of education. This finding also points to the importance of controlling for education level when investigating age effects. As in most samples and populations, age was negatively related to education in the current study, and not including both variables in the same analysis might lead to a spurious effect. We do find support for the differences between men and women on the relationship between perceived usefulness and attitude toward the SST. In our study, the link between perceived usefulness and attitude is stronger for men than for women. This finding is in keeping with Venkatesh and Morris (2000), who suggested that men are more likely to focus on the benefits of using the technology than are women, who are more likely to be

interested in making sure that the technology does not hinder their work. Managerial Implications The results of our study show that retail stores interested in increasing the number of customers using SSTs must focus on communicating to the customers the perceived benefits of using the SST, particularly the resulting (perceived) efficiency. Attention must also be paid to ensure that the SSTs not only are easy to use but also perform reliably. The SSTs must be sturdy and should not break down in the middle of a shopping trip (Meuter et al. 2000). For situations when they do break down, contingency plans must be drawn up to ensure that the customer does not have to undergo the process again with a new scanner or have to choose to stand in line to be served by a service employee (Holloway and Beatty 2003). In addition, if the above conditions are met, the fun aspect of the SST may induce customers to use it during shopping. This is in line with Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994), who noted that if shopping trips are assessed solely on the utilitarian benefits of products or services attained, the numerous intangible and emotional aspects related to a shopping experience are excluded. Bauer, Falk, and Hammerschmidt (2006) have supported this notion by pointing out the importance of hedonic aspects in technology-dominated retail settings. Thus, SST usage is not only triggered by extrinsic motives to shop in a more efficient manner but also by intrinsic motives relating to the enjoyment of using modern technologies (Childers et al. 2001). Furthermore, managers of retail stores must ensure that male shoppers are made aware of the potential benefits of using the SSTs. Also, managers need to communicate the newness of the technology to individuals with higher educational levels, which in our study resulted in more positive attitudes toward using SSTs and higher probabilities of subsequent usage of the SSTs. However, our results suggest that managers need to focus on other ways of ensuring that individuals with lower educational levels use the SSTs. One possible option is to offer incentives to get these individuals to try the SST. One of the findings of the study was that perceived waiting time plays an important role as an antecedent of satisfaction. SST users are especially demanding in this regard. Consequently, managers should allocate sufficient staff to the SST check-out counter to avoid waiting lines there. To create realistic expectations, customers should be made aware that the potential benefit of SST is realized only when purchasing many items. Although SSTs in a retail setting are useful, there is no indication that the total time spent in-store per customer

18

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / August 2007

is reduced. Hence, managers should be aware that the introduction of SST will not necessarily lead to a better overall customer flow through the store.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Although this study has provided us with a deeper insight in the process of customer interaction with SSTs, a number of limitations still remain. Together with the findings discussed above, these limitations may indicate routes for future research. In this study, perceived waiting time and overall satisfaction were measured using only one item. Multiple items per construct generally are accepted as the ideal or, in some cases, required methodology (Churchill 1979). We made a trade-off in favor of minimizing irritation among our respondents, thus also decreasing the risk of reactivity of measurement (Taylor 1994). The expected outcome of this is that measurement error would have attenuated the effects found in Part 3 of our model. Thus, the tests of Hypotheses 10 and 11 were more conservative than they would have been with the use of multi-item measures for satisfaction. Our study is cross-sectional and is limited to what happens during one shopping trip. Needless to say, the attitude formation process extends to the period both before and after the shopping trip. Previous experience will definitely influence the beliefs, attitude, and intention of some customers or will do so in the future. Although past behavior has been proven to be a sound predictor of current behavior (Sheeran, Orbell, and Trafimow 1999), we believe that the route we have taken in this study is more insightful in face of the questions at hand. More specifically, we wanted to establish customer perceptions of SST attributes and their corresponding relationship to attitudes and actual SST use. An important part of our model is measured by means of one questionnaire at one point in time. This might have led to common method bias (McFarlin and Sweeney 1992). Several arguments can be made against this possibility. First, we observed a regression weight of zero for the main effect of novelty on attitude and a negative effect for a specific group (less educated). Second, discriminant and convergent validity was good (see Table 1). This supports the claim that factors in our model were not spuriously correlated as a consequence of yeasaying. Also, the relations between variables that are measured at different stages of our data collection (entry survey, observation, exit survey) show effect sizes in the same range as those of the other relations. As noted in the Method section, in the setting under study only loyal customers are eligible for use of the SST for

reasons explained earlier. Hence, it is not known to what extent the current findings generalize to the general customer base. Future research may focus on a longitudinal study in which the effect of the outcomes of using SST on one occasion has an impact on the attitudes toward the SST at the next occasion. In addition, future research must study the impact of the outcomes of SST use on the level of loyalty displayed by the customers. The effect of perceived waiting time and the corresponding level of satisfaction experienced by SST users on their subsequent decision to indulge in positive word of mouth about the SSTs might be of particular interest to investigate.

NOTES
1. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out this variable as an interesting outcome to investigate. 2. By actionable, we mean that the proposed segmentation (in terms of demographics) provides the opportunity for management to implement actions to target specific segments with specific propositions. For example, direct mailings with specific arguments and incentives to use SST can be addressed to different age groups. 3. It is not our intention to imply that the perception of waiting time is somehow biased either among non-SST users or SST users. Rather, we opt for perceived waiting time (rather than actual waiting time) for two reasons: It is perceivednot actualwaiting time that affects satisfaction, and asking about perceived waiting times leaves the customer the freedom to decide what is counted as waiting time and what is not, thus circumventing the conceptual and operational problem of delineating when waiting time starts and ends. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for drawing our attention to the potential lack of clarity in this regard.

APPENDIX A Below, we list the items used in the entry survey to measure perceived SST attributes and attitude toward using the SST.
Perceived Usefulness (5-point, Likert-type scale: completely disagree to completely agree) 1. Self-scanning will allow me to shop fasterc 2. Self-scanning will make me more efficient while shoppingc 3. Self-scanning reduces the waiting time at the cash registerc Ease of Use (5-point, Likert-type scale: completely disagree to completely agree) 1. Self-scanning will be effortlessc 2. Self-scanning will be user friendlyc Reliability (5-point, Likert-type scale: completely disagree to completely agree) 1. Self-scanning will be reliableb 2. I expect self-scanning to work wella 3. Self-scanning will have a faultless resultc

Weijters et al. / USE OF SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY

19

Fun (5-point, Likert-type scale: completely disagree to completely agree) 1. Self-scanning will be entertainingb 2. Self-scanning will be enjoyableb Newness (5-point semantic differential scales) 1. Self-scanning is outmodedSelf-scanning is progressivec 2. Self-scanning is oldSelf-scanning is newc 3. Self-scanning is obsoleteSelf-scanning is innovativec

Attitude How would you describe your feelings toward using selfscanning technology in this store? (5-point semantic differential scales) 1. Unfavorablefavorableb 2. I dislike itI like itc 3. Badgoodb
a. Item based on Dabholkar (1996). b. Items based on Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002). c. Items written based on the qualitative study.

APPENDIX B Correlation Matrix of the Variables in the Attitude-Use Model (Panel I of Figure 1)
Item pu1 pu2 pu3 peou1 peou2 rel1 rel2 rel3 fun1 fun2 new1 new2 new3 att1 att2 att3 1 1.00 0.58 0.49 0.31 0.35 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.33 0.38 0.22 0.13 0.19 0.47 0.45 0.45 2 0.58 1.00 0.39 0.29 0.31 0.15 0.19 0.17 0.40 0.42 0.28 0.18 0.22 0.42 0.41 0.43 3 0.49 0.39 1.00 0.15 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.24 0.33 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.36 0.33 0.37 4 0.31 0.29 0.15 1.00 0.68 0.24 0.31 0.25 0.30 0.31 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.39 0.40 0.36 5 0.35 0.31 0.23 0.68 1.00 0.25 0.40 0.26 0.38 0.41 0.18 0.07 0.09 0.47 0.51 0.50 8 0.07 0.15 0.16 0.24 0.25 1.00 0.61 0.52 0.14 0.17 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.21 0.22 0.23 9 0.09 0.19 0.16 0.31 0.40 0.61 1.00 0.48 0.16 0.20 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.25 0.26 0.30 10 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.25 0.26 0.52 0.48 1.00 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.27 6 0.33 0.40 0.24 0.30 0.38 0.14 0.16 0.19 1.00 0.83 0.24 0.17 0.18 0.45 0.46 0.43 7 0.38 0.42 0.33 0.31 0.41 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.83 1.00 0.22 0.13 0.17 0.50 0.51 0.48 11 0.22 0.28 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.24 0.22 1.00 0.59 0.68 0.20 0.24 0.28 12 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.17 0.13 0.59 1.00 0.66 0.08 0.12 0.12 13 0.19 0.22 0.17 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.18 0.17 0.68 0.66 1.00 0.18 0.22 0.22 14 0.47 0.42 0.36 0.39 0.47 0.21 0.25 0.27 0.45 0.50 0.20 0.08 0.18 1.00 0.86 0.80 15 0.45 0.41 0.33 0.40 0.51 0.22 0.26 0.27 0.46 0.51 0.24 0.12 0.22 0.86 1.00 0.85 16 0.45 0.43 0.37 0.36 0.50 0.23 0.30 0.27 0.43 0.48 0.28 0.12 0.22 0.80 0.85 1.00

NOTE: Use is a dichotomous variable and was analyzed as such; therefore, the correlation is not reported here.

REFERENCES
Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Anderson Eugene W. and Vikas Mittal (2000), Strengthening the Satisfaction-Profit Chain, Journal of Service Research, 3 (2), 107-21. , Claes Fornell, and Donald R. Lehmann (1994), Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings From Sweden, Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 53-66. , Claes Fornell, and Sanal K. Mazvancheryl (2004), Customer Satisfaction and Shareholder Value, Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), 172-85. Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994), Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value, Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644-56. Bateson, John E. G. (1985), Self-Service Customer: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Retailing, 61 (3), 49-76. Bauer, Hans H., Tomas Falk, and Maik Hammerschmidt (2006), eTransQual: A Transaction Process-Based Approach for Capturing Service Quality in Online Shopping, Journal of Business Research, 59 (7), 866-75.

Baumgartner, Hans and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (1996), Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior: Conceptualization and Measurement, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 121-37. Berlyne, Daniel E. (1978), Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Value, Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279-86. Berry, Leonard L., Kathleen Seiders, and Dhruv Grewal (2002), Understanding Service Convenience, Journal of Marketing, 66 (July), 1-17. Bobbitt, Michelle L. and Prathiba A. Dabholkar (2001), Integrating Attitudinal Theories to Understand and Predict Use of TechnologyBased Self-Service, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12 (5), 43-70. Blythe, Jim (1999), Innovativeness and Newness in High-Tech Consumer Durables, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 8 (5), 415-29. Capon, Noel and Marian Burke (1980), Individual, Product Class and Task-Related Factors in Consumer Information Processing, Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 314-26. Childers, Terry L., Christopher L. Carr, Joann Peck, and Stephen Carson (2001), Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for Online Retail Shopping Behavior, Journal of Retailing, 77, 511-35. Chiu, Yu-Bin, Chieh-Peng Lin, and Ling-Lang Tang (2005), Gender Differs: Assessing a Model of Online Purchase Intentions in e-Tail

20

JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH / August 2007

Service, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16 (5), 416-35. Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64-73. comScore. (2007), comScore Networks Reports Total Non-Travel E-Commerce Spending Reaches $102 Billion in 2006; Up 24 Percent Versus 2005, comScore Press Release. http://www.comscore.com/ press/release.asp?press=1166. Curran, James M., Matthew L. Meuter, and Carol F. Surprenant (2003), Intentions to Use SSTs: A Confluence of Multiple Attitudes, Journal of Service Research, 5 (3), 209-24. Czepiel, John (1980), Managing Customer Satisfaction in Consumer Service Businesses. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Dabholkar, Prathiba A. (1994), Incorporating Choice Into an Attitudinal Framework: Analyzing Models of Mental Comparison Processes, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 100-18. (1996), Consumer Evaluations of New Technology-Based Self-Service Options: An Investigation of Alternative Models of Service Quality, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13 (1), 29-52. and Richard Bagozzi (2002), An Attitudinal Model of Technology-Based Self-Service: Moderating Effects of Consumer Traits and Situational Factors, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 184-201. , Michelle Bobbitt, and Eun-Ju Lee (2003), Understanding Consumer Motivation and Behavior Related to Self-Scanning in Retailing: Implications for Strategy and Research on TechnologyBased Self-Service, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14 (1), 59-95. Davis, Fred D. (1989), Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quarterly, 1989 (September), 319-40. , Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw (1989), User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models, Management Science, 35 (8), 982-1003. , , and (1992), Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (14), 1111-32. Davis, Mark M. and Thomas E. Vollmann (1990), A Framework for Relating Waiting Time and Customer Satisfaction in a Service Operation, Journal of Services Marketing, 4 (1), 61-9. Draper, Norman R. and Harry Smith (1998), Applied Regression Analysis, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley. Durrande-Moreau, Agnes and Jean-Claude Usunier (1999), Time Styles and the Waiting Experience, Journal of Service Research, 2 (2), 173-86. Evanschitzky, Heiner and Maren Wunderlich (2006), An Examination of Moderator Effects in the Four-Stage Loyalty Model, Journal of Service Research, 8 (4), 330-45. Featherman, Mauricio S. and Paul A. Pavlou (2003), Predicting eService Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 451-74. Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), Evaluating Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39-50. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1980), Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking and Consumer Creativity, Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December), 283-95. Holloway, Betsy B. and Sharon Beatty (2003), E-Service Failure in Online Retailing, Journal of Service Research, 6 (1), 92-105. Homburg, Christian and Annette Giering (2001), Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the Relationship Between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis, Psychology & Marketing, 18 (1), 43-66.

Hornik, Jacob (1984), Subjective vs. Objective Time Measures: A Note on the Perception of Time in Consumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (3), 615-18. Hoyer, Wayne D. and Deborah J. MacInnis (2004), Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Hsieh, An-Tien, Chang-Hua Yen, and Ko-Chien Chin (2004), Participative Customers as Partial Employees and Service Provider Workload, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15 (2), 187-99. Hu, Li-tze and Peter M. Bentler (1999), Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55. Hui, Michael K. and David K. Tse (1996), What to Tell Consumers in Waits of Different Lengths: An Integrative Model of Service Evaluation, Journal of Marketing 60 (2), 81-90. Im, Subin, Barry L. Bayus, and Charlotte H. Mason (2003), An Empirical Study of Innate Consumer Innovativeness, Personal Characteristics, and New-Product Adoption Behavior, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (1), 61-72. Laroche, Michel, Gad Saad, Mark Cleveland, and Elizabeth Browne (2000), Gender Differences in Information Search Strategies for a Christmas Gift, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17 (6), 500-11. , Mark Cleveland, Jamsin Bergerson, and Christine Goutaland (2003), The Knowledge-Experience-Evaluation Relationship: A Structural Equations Modeling Test of Gender Differences, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20 (September), 246-59. MacCallum, Robert C., Shaobo Zhang, Kristopher J. Preacher, and Derek D. Rucker (2002), On the Practice of Dichotomization of Quantitative Variables, Psychological Methods, 7 (1), 19-40. McFarlin, Dean B. and Paul D. Sweeney (1992), Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Satisfaction With Personal and Organizational Outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, 35 (3), 626-38. McQuitty, Shaun (2004), Statistical Power and Structural Equation Models in Business Research, Journal of Business Research, 57 (2), 175-83. Meuter, Matthew L., Amy L. Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree, and Mary Jo Bitner (2000), SSTs: Understanding Customer Satisfaction With Technology-Based Service Encounters, Journal of Marketing, 64 (3), 50-64. , Mary Jo Bitner, Amy L. Ostrom, and Stephen W. Brown (2005), Choosing Among Alternative Service Delivery Modes: An Investigation of Consumer Trial of SSTs, Journal of Marketing, 69 (April), 61-83. Meyers-Levy, Joan (1988), The Influence of Sex Roles on Judgment, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (4), 522-30. and Brian Sternthal (1991), Gender Differences in the Use of Message Cues and Judgements, Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (February), 84-96. , and Durairaj Maheswaran (1991), Exploring Differences in Males and Females Processing Strategy, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (June), 63-70. Mick, David G. (2003), From the Editor: Appreciation, Advice, and Some Aspirations for Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (March), 455-62. Midgley, David F. and Grahame R. Dowling (1978), Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement, Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (4), 220-42. Mittal, Vikas and Wagner A. Kamakura (2001), Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent and Repurchase Behaviour: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics, Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (February), 131-42. Morris, Michael G. and Viswanath Venkatesh (2000), Age Differences in Technology Adoption Decisions: Implications for a Changing Work Force, Personnel Psychology, 53, 375-403. Muthn, Linda K. and Bengt O. Muthn (2004), MPlus, Statistical Analysis With Latent Variables: User Guide, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Muthn & Muthn.

Weijters et al. / USE OF SELF-SERVICE TECHNOLOGY

21

Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry (1988), SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), 12-40. , Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Arvind Malhotra (2005), E-SQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service Quality, Journal of Service Research, 7 (3), 213-33. Plouffe, Christopher R., John S. Hulland, and Mark Vandenbosch (2001), Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions: Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System, Information Systems Research, 12 (2), 208-223. Pruyn, Ad and Ale Smidts (1998), Effects of Waiting on the Satisfaction With the Service: Beyond Objective Time Measures, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15 (4), 321-334. Quinn, James B. (1996), The Productivity Paradox Is False: Information Technology Improves Service Performance, in Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Teresa A. Swartz, David E. Bowen, and Stephen W. Brown, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 71-84. Raju, Puthankurissi S. (1980), Optimum Stimulation Level, Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 272-82. Rangarajan, Deva, Eli Jones, and Wynne Chin (2005), Impact of Sales Force Automation on Technology-Related Stress, Effort, and Technology Usage Among Salespeople, Industrial Marketing Management, 34 (4), 345-54. Robertson, Thomas S. and Hubert Gatignon (1991), How Innovators Thwart New Entrants Into Their Market, Planning Review, 19 (5), 4-13. Rogers, Everett M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York: The Free Press. Rossiter, John R. (2002), The C-OAR-SE Procedure for Scale Development in Marketing, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (4), 305-36. Rust, Roland T. (2001), The Rise of E-Service, Journal of Service Research, 3 (4), 283-85. , Katherine N. Lemon, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (2004), Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing Strategy, Journal of Marketing, 68, 109-127. Sheeran, Paschal, Sheina Orbell, and David Trafimow (1999), Does the Temporal Stability of Behavioral Intentions Moderate IntentionBehavior and Past Behavior-Future Behavior Relations? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (6), 724-30. Sherry, John F., Mary Ann McGrath, and Sidney J. Levy (1993), The Dark Side of the Gift, Journal of Business Research, 68 (1), 225-45. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. and Hans Baumgartner (1992), The Role of Optimum Stimulation Level in Exploratory Consumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (4), 434-48. , Frenkel ter Hofstede and Michel Wedel (1999), A CrossNational Investigation Into the Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness, Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 55-69. Taylor, Shirley (1994), Waiting for Service: The Relationship Between Delays and Evaluations of Service, Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 56-69. Tom, Gail and Scott Lucey (1995), Waiting Time Delays and Customer Satisfaction in Supermarkets, Journal of Service Marketing, 9 (5), 20-9. Venkatesh, Viswanath and Fred D. Davis (2000), A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies, Management Science, 46 (2), 186-204. , and Michael G. Morris (2000), Why Dont Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior, MIS Quarterly, 24 (March), 115-39. , Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis (2003), User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View, MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425-78.

Wedel, Michel and Wagner A. Kamakura (2000), Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations, 2nd ed. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Zeithaml Valarie A. and Marie Jo Bitner (2003), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bert Weijters is an assistant professor of marketing at the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School. He holds a PhD in marketing (Ghent University), a Vlerick MA degree in marketing management, and a masters degree in psychology (Ghent University). His PhD dissertation discusses response styles in consumer research. His other domains of interest are consumer behavior, market segmentation, and the diffusion and adoption of innovations. Devarajan Rangarajan is an assistant professor of marketing at the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, where he is also program director of the Master in General Management. He holds a PhD in marketing (C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston) and a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering (University of Madras). In 2003 he was awarded the AMA Sales SIG Doctoral Dissertation Award by the Direct Selling Educational Foundation and the Direct Selling Educational Foundation Award for doctoral research at the National Conference in Sales Management. His research interests focus on sales team composition, sales team effectiveness, and sales team learning. Tomas Falk is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research in Karlsruhe (Germany). He has received his PhD from the University of Mannheim Business School (Germany). His areas of expertise comprise the fields of service innovation, service quality, and industrial services. He has received research grants from the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM), Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, and the Julius-PaulStiegler-Gedaechtnis-Stiftung. His research work has been published in refereed journals including Journal of Business Research and International Journal of Bank Marketing. Niels Schillewaert is an associate professor of marketing at the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School. He obtained his PhD entitled Information Technology Enabled Selling in Business Markets. Studies on the Acceptance and Effects of Information Technology in the Sales Force at Ghent University. He also holds a Vlerick Master in Marketing Management degree and is currently program director of the Master in Marketing Management. During his PhD period, he studied at the Pennsylvania State University (USA) and was nominated as ISBM Doctoral Researcher. He is cofounder and managing Partner of InSites, a consulting and research office specialized in e-business. His research interests lie in business marketing, sales management, information technology, and e-business.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.