Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Supermarket self-checkout service quality, customer satisfaction, and

loyalty: Empirical evidence from an emerging market
Fatma Demirci Orel a,n, Ali Kara b,1
a
b

Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Cukurova University, Adana 01330, Turkey
College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University York Campus, York, PA 17403, USA

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 8 April 2013
Received in revised form
1 July 2013
Accepted 3 July 2013
Available online 22 August 2013

Supermarket shoppers around the world are increasingly encountering and using self-service technologies (SSTs) during their shopping process. The SSTs are mainly offered to reduce retailer costs and
enhance customer's experience. Among the many different SSTs available, self-checkout systems (SCS)
have become an extremely popular choice of supermarkets around the world. Although some of the main
motivations of the supermarkets for offering SCSs are cost cutting, speed, and convenience, supermarkets
are also assuming that these services would enhance customer experience, satisfaction, and ultimately
loyalty. However, empirical evidence is needed to better understand customer expectations of SCS
service quality and how technology based service quality impacts retail patronage. Therefore, the
purpose of this research is to examine the service quality of supermarket/grocery store SCSs and its
impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty in an emerging market, namely Turkey. Using the SSTQUAL
scale (Lin and Hsieh, 2011), data (n 275) for the study is collected from shoppers who had just
completed going through the self-checkout counter in a large supermarket chain. The results of this
study show that SCS service quality positively inuences loyalty through the customer satisfaction path.
Managerial and research implications of the ndings are discussed.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Self-checkout service quality
Customer satisfaction
Customer loyalty
Emerging market

1. Introduction
Rapid advances in technology are signicantly inuencing how
retailers deliver their functions and stay competitive in the globalized markets. These technological advancements are dramatically
altering the way consumers interact with retailers and how retailers
communicate with their customers. To reduce cost, increase value,
and improve customer satisfaction, retailers are adopting a variety of
self-service technologies (SSTs) at an increasing rate. According to a
survey conducted by the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), while only
six percent of the supermarkets in the USA had offered self-checkout
lanes in 1999, that share has jumped to thirty-ve percent in 2003
(Grimes, 2004), and reached to nearly ninety-ve percent in 2007.
Furthermore, a recent IHL report shows that approximately 1540%
of all daily transaction value and 1230% of the daily dollar value of
supermarkets (Kroger, Albertson's and others) are being handled by
self-checkouts (Holmen and Buzek, 2012). Similar trends are developing in other countries as well. For instance, the NCR Corporation

n
Correspondence to: Cukurova University, Department of Business Administration, Professor of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences, 01330 Adana, Turkey. Tel.: +90 322 3387255x279;
fax: +90 322 3387286.
E-mail addresses: fdorel@cu.edu.tr (F. Demirci Orel), axk19@psu.edu (A. Kara).
1
Tel: +1 717 771 4189; fax: +1 717 771 8404.

0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.07.002

reported that self-checkouts were introduced to Turkish consumers

in ve grocery stores for the rst time in Turkey in 1999 (NCR, 2001).
Turkey mirrored the strategy employed in the US by rst introducing
self-checkouts in supermarkets but unlike in the US where selfscanning initially failed (Dabholkar et al., 2003), shoppers in Turkey
quickly became accustomed to the new system (NCR, 2001). Since
then, the self-checkout use in the supermarkets has been increasing
and approximately 107 supermarkets currently offer self-checkout
service in Turkey.
Although the retailers have been using SSTs for a while and
interest in the SSTs is not a new concept, the measurement and
evaluation of the value of SSTs are becoming increasingly more
important as the retailers expand their offerings and more and
more customers utilize such services. A recent survey conducted
for NCR shows that almost half of the shoppers under the age of 45
prefer to use self-services in supermarkets (Giesen, 2012). While
retailers are motivated by cost reductions, efciency, exibility,
productivity and improved corporate performance when adopting
SSTs (Lee et al., 2009; Bitner et al., 2002), it is imperative to
examine the customers' shopping experiences and service quality
expectations of self-checkout systems' (SCS) in order to accomplish improved retailer service performance, customer satisfaction
and loyalty.
A considerable amount of previous research has studied the
importance of service quality on customer satisfaction and loyalty

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

using established measurement scales such as SERVQUAL

(Parasuraman et al., 1988). Also, the existing research on the
measurement of the service quality of SSTs has generally focused
on e-services and much less research attempts have been made to
examine the measurement of SCS service quality and its impact on
customer satisfaction and loyalty. Moreover, most of the previous
research has focused on assessing service quality as a global
measure of the rm's offerings; we argue that service quality
assessments should have a narrower focus for different microlevels within an organization because of the unique nature of
different service offerings. Focusing research attention to service
quality of the newly adopted systems, such as SCSs, in a retail
organization then becomes crucial because such emphasis will not
only contribute to the systemic quality improvements for other
offerings of the retailer but also contribute to a management
culture that accepts the improvements in service quality as a longterm continuous process and its importance as a key element for
the success of the entire organization. We argue that the role of
service quality delivered by SCSs should be investigated to understand its inuence on consumers' patronage intentions towards
retailers as a whole. Therefore, rather than simply examining
consumers' acceptance of or satisfactions/dissatisfactions with
the SCSs, the purpose of this research is to examine the service
quality of supermarket/grocery store SCSs and its impact on
customer satisfaction and loyalty in an emerging market, namely
Turkey. We rst provide a brief synthesis of the service quality
literature in general on key conceptual issues. We then focus on
the current attempts made to measure service quality in SSTs and
more particularly in SCSs. Next, we present our conceptualized
model with respect to the role of service quality on loyalty. Finally,
we present the results of quantitative analyses and offer explanations of the study's ndings.

119

logic that argues for the centrality of service as the value creating
activity that drives marketing exchanges (Vargo and Lusch, 2008).
Traditionally, service quality has been conceptualized as the
difference between customer expectations of a service to be
received, and perceptions of the actual service received
(Grnroos, 2001; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Parasuraman et al.
(1988) conceptualized service quality as a construct with ve
dimensions (reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and
tangibles) and the SERVQUAL scale was offered to measure service
quality in face-to-face service encounters. Although it has been a
very popular measure to use, SERVQUAL has also been criticized
for its weaknesses and practical applications (Cronin and Taylor,
1992). Carman (1990) argued that there is little theoretical support
with regards to the relevance of service expectationsperformance
gap as a basis of measuring service quality. Also, other researchers
argued that there might be a possibility of existence of up to
9 dimensions of service quality depending on the type of service
sector under investigation. Similar criticism was also raised by
several other researchers (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Babakus and
Boller, 1992; Teas, 1993; Brown et al., 1993). Cronin and Taylor
(1992) argued that the conceptualization and operationalization of
SERVQUAL was inadequate and cited relevant marketing literature
(Bolton and Drew, 1991; Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Woodruff
et al., 1983) supporting simple performance-based measures of
service quality. As a result, Cronin and Taylor (1992) offered their
version of perceived service quality model (SERVPERF), which
takes into account the customer's perception of the quality of
the service provided. The SERVPERF scale has since been frequently used to measure service quality in several studies
(Bloemer et al., 1999; Vanniarajan and Anbazhagan, 2007;
Athanassopoulos et al., 2000).

2.2. Service quality of SSTs

2. Literature review
2.1. An overview of service quality
Since the seminal article of Parasuraman et al. (1988) that
offered a structure to the concept and measurement of service
quality, a number of studies have sought to examine the service
quality construct more closely. For the last three decades, debates
have raged about the dimensions and measures of service quality,
about whether contexts (industry) and type of services have any
inuence on service quality perceptions, whether service quality
ought to be assessed at the encounter level or more generally, or
how cultures inuence and modify the effects of service quality
(Bitner, 1995; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Furrer et al.,
2002; Teas, 1993; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003). Such debates have
signicantly enriched the literature on the subject and may have
even contributed to the evolution of a service-dominant (S-D)

SSTs may be dened as technological interfaces that enable

customers to produce a service independent of direct service
employee involvement (Meuter et al., 2000, p. 50). The retailers
provide SSTs to enhance consumers' experience, reduce employee
related expenses, achieve customer retention, and keep up with the
technological advancements. A range of service delivery points such
as ATMs, automated hotel checkouts, Internet services (such as
banking over the Internet), self-service kiosks (digital photo kiosks,
information kiosks, interactive music and movie samplers, and
electronic kiosks for gifts), grocery self-checkout lanes and pay-atpump gas stations incorporate technology to provide their service to
the consumer. The adoption of SSTs has been following an evolution
process which is illustrated in Table 1. This table shows Fitzsimmons'
(2003) concept of the evolution of self-service stages from the
original face-to-face service encounter to the current trend for a
service encounter that is facilitated by technology.

Table 1
Evolution of self-service.
Source: Fitzsimmons (2003, p. 444).
Service industry

Human contact

Machine assisted service

Electronic service

Retail banking
Grocery
Airline
Restaurants
Movie theater
Book store
Education
Retail store

Teller
Checkout clerk
Ticket agent
Waiting staff
Ticket sales
Shop assistant
Teacher
Checkout clerk

ATM
Self-checkout station
Check-in kiosk
Vending machine
Kiosk ticketing
Stock-availability terminal
Computer tutorial
Self-checkout station

Online banking
Online order/pickup
Print boarding pass
Online order/delivery
Pay-per-view
Online ordering
Distance learning
Online shopping

120

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

It is argued that SSTs lead to a perception of enhanced service

as customers can complete the transaction more quickly and
conveniently (Anitsal and Flint, 2006; Dabholkar et al., 2003;
Hsieh, 2005). As mentioned earlier, among others, the selfcheckout systems (SCSs) have been a popular choice of SST in
the retailing sector. SCSs are assumed to offer numerous benets
to retailers and customers. The retailers benet from SCSs in the
form of reduced stafng needs, which leads to reduced personnel
training costs (Dabholkar et al., 2003). Generally, one attendant
can assist customers in four to six checkout lanes, if needed. This
provides cost efciencies and improved use of labor to the retail
rms and possibly contributing to retailer's competitive advantage.
On the other hand, consumers are assumed to benet from SCSs in
the form of reduced checkout time, faster service, and perceived
privacy/anonymity (Hsieh, 2005).
The delivery of retail services using SSTs differs from other
face-to-face interactions with the service provider. By its nature,
SSTs require consumer's active participation in the production
process of the services. In other words, such systems enable
consumers to co-produce the service with a minimal or no
involvement of service provider's employees (Meuter et al.,
2000). In this process, the success of the service production is
inuenced by customer's engagement, knowledge, behavior, and
skills to complete the transactions. Accordingly, some studies
focused on examining the antecedents of consumer dissatisfaction
with SSTs (Robertson and Shaw, 2008) while others have focused
on the development of new measurement scales for SSTs.
Literature provides various scales to measure service quality.
Traditionally, SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales were primarily
designed to address customer-to-employee interaction, but not the
customer-to-SST interaction; hence researchers argued that they
may not be able to represent the different facets of service quality of
the SSTs. During the last decade, a number of attempts have been
made to develop a context specic service quality measurement
scale for technology based services. For instance, Zeithaml et al.
(2002) produced 11 dimensions to be used in evaluating the delivery
of electronic service quality. These dimensions included access, ease
of navigation, efciency, exibility, reliability, personalization, security, responsiveness, assurance/trust, site aesthetics, and price knowledge. Barnes and Vidgen (2001) have extended the SERVQUAL scale
and established a WebQual Index including the following seven
dimensions of service quality: reliability, competence, responsiveness, access, credibility, communication, and understanding the
individual. On the other hand, Yoo and Donthu (2001) proposed
an instrument to measure the perceived quality of an Internet

shopping site (SITEQUAL). Their scale included four dimensions:

ease of use, aesthetic design, processing speed and security. Yang
et al. (2004) argued that SST service quality should have specic
dimensions and proposed six SST perceived service quality dimensions (reliability, responsiveness, competence, ease of use, security,
and product portfolio). In response to the attempts that have been
made to develop a specic service quality measurement instrument
for SSTs, Parasuraman et al. (2005) proposed the E-S-QUAL scale for
assessing the service quality provided by online shopping providers.
The E-S-QUAL scale addresses core service quality aspects and
consists of four quality dimensions (efciency, fulllment, system
availability and privacy). Bauer et al. (2006) developed a transaction
process-based scale for measuring service quality (eTransQual) and
identied ve quality dimensions: functionality/design, enjoyment,
process, reliability and responsiveness. More recently, Ding et al.
(2011) offered e-SELFQUAL for measuring online self-service quality,
which consists of four dimensions (perceived control, service convenience, customer service, and service fulllment).
We argue that the existing research on the measurement of the
service quality of SSTs has mostly focused on e-services. The attributebased model suggested by Dabholkar (1996) could be used as a
framework to measure the ve most important service quality aspects
of SSTs cited in the literature (speed of delivery, ease of use, reliability,
enjoyment and control). Accordingly, Lee et al. (2009) offered a scale
to measure the service quality of the self-service kiosks in retail
stores. Adapted from Dabholkar et al. (2000), this study included four
factors (reliability, personal attention, comfort and features) as the
service quality dimensions. Perhaps the most recent scale, which was
specically developed for SSTs, is offered by Lin and Hsieh (2011).
SSTQUAL has 20 items and seven dimensions (functionality, enjoyment,
security, assurance, design, convenience, and customization) and has
been offered as a global assessment of SST service quality across
contexts. We believe that SSTQUAL is best t to measure service
quality of SCSs in supermarket environment.

3. Conceptual model and hypotheses

The literature shows that service quality is closely related to
customer satisfaction (Brady and Robertson, 2001; Sureshchandar
et al., 2002; Akbar and Parvez, 2009) and customer loyalty. Caruana
(2002) showed that service quality is an important input to customer
satisfaction and Cronin and Taylor (1992) included loyalty as one of
the important outcomes of service quality models. Accordingly, we
utilize the following conceptual model in this study to examine the

Fig. 1. The conceptual model of the research.

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

SCSs service quality on customer satisfaction and loyalty. Fig. 1 also

shows the directions of hypothesized relationships.
3.1. Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction has been dened in various ways. Kotler
and Armstrong (1996) dene customer satisfaction as the level of a
person's felt state resulting from comparing a product's perceived
performance or outcome with his/her own expectations. Bitner and
Zeithaml (2003) stated that satisfaction is the customer's evaluation
of a product or service in terms of whether that product or service
has met their needs and expectations. According to Parasuraman
et al. (1988) satisfaction is related to a specic transaction. Satisfaction with services is a desired outcome of service encounters, linking
consumption with post-purchase occurrences such as attitude
change (Mishra, 2009; Siddiqi, 2011). The importance of customer
satisfaction is reected in the University of Michigan's American
Customer Satisfaction Index (Fornell et al., 1996), which tracks
customers across numerous rms representing all major economic
sectors. Customer satisfaction is dened here in Oliver's (1997) terms
as the consumer's fulllment response. It is a judgment that a
product or service provides a pleasurable level of consumptionrelated fulllment. In other words, it is the overall level of contentment with a service/product experience.
In the service quality literature, many studies show that service
quality leads to customer satisfaction (Brady and Robertson, 2001;
Sureshchandar et al., 2002; Akbar and Parvez, 2009; Caruana, 2002).
Various studies have shown a link between perceived service quality
and satisfaction (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988;
Choi et al., 2005). In a customertechnology interaction context,
studies also showed signicant relationship between service quality
and customer satisfaction. Wolnbarger and Gilly (2003) revealed
that strong relationships exist between service quality and customer
satisfaction in internet retailing. Ribbink et al. (2004) identied a
positive link between electronic service quality and customer
satisfaction in the e-commerce industry. Wu (2011) also revealed
that electronic service quality has a direct positive effect on customer
satisfaction for consumer electronics e-tailers. We examine this
relationship only to conrm that our model predicts earlier ndings
and serves to validate the alternative measures of service quality.
Thus, the following hypothesis is posited:
H1. SCS service quality will have a direct positive impact on
satisfaction.
3.2. Customer loyalty
Customer loyalty has been dened by Lee et al. (2001) as
involving word-of-mouth recommendation to others and an
increased likelihood of buying the brand, as well as repeated
purchase of the goods or services offered by the company. Pearson
(1996) has dened customer loyalty as the mindset of the
customers who hold favorable attitudes toward a company,
commit to repurchase the company's product/service, and recommend the product/service to others. The literature identies that
service quality is an essential element for customer loyalty (Cronin
and Taylor, 1992; Boulding et al., 1993). The following hypothesis is
offered:
H2. SCS service quality will have a positive impact on loyalty.
Scholars argue that a customer who is satised with the quality
of services received from a service provider will be more likely to
form intentions to repeat purchases from the same provider. For
example, Zeithaml et al. (1996) argued that when customers are
happy with the services provided, certain behaviors were evident
including customer loyalty, willingness to pay higher prices and

121

reduced likelihood that customers will complain about the company to others. These arguments were supported in a study that
conrmed the positive relationship between service quality and
repurchase intentions (Boulding et al., 1993). In general, in the
service marketing literature, it appears that research results
pointed towards a signicant link between customer satisfaction
and customers' behavioral intentions, both in traditional and
technological contexts. Cronin and Taylor (1992) revealed that
consumer satisfaction has a signicant effect on purchase intentions. Wu (2011) also found this positive effect in the e-commerce
industry. Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
H3. Customer satisfaction will have a direct positive impact on
loyalty.
Furthermore, while some studies in the literature have provided evidence to support the view of a direct link between
customer satisfaction and loyalty, others indicated that the customer satisfactionloyalty relationship is complex, and that the
factors that affect customer satisfaction may differ from those
that determine customer loyalty (Reichheld, 2001). Szymanski and
Henard (2001), in their meta-analysis, reported fteen positive
and statistically signicant correlations between satisfaction and
loyalty. Although there is no clear consensus with respect to the
measurement and relationships between the two constructs,
a review by Jacoby and Kyner (1973) conrmed that previous
studies used behavioral outcomes to measure loyalty and argued
that satised customers would have a higher usage level of service
than those who are not satised (Bolton and Lemon, 1999) and
that they are more likely to possess stronger purchase intentions
and recommend the product (Zeithaml et al., 1996). A number of
other studies have also established that customer satisfaction
positively affects loyalty (Bearden and Teel, 1983; Oliver, 1999;
Bloemer and Kasper, 1995; Shankar et al., 2003). Ehigie (2006)
suggested that customer satisfaction is positively related to customer loyalty/retention and Kheng et al. (2010) found that high
customer satisfaction had a positive effect on customer loyalty.
More specic to the current study, Marzocchi and Zammit (2006)
found that satisfaction with self-checkouts positively inuenced
consumers' patronage intentions toward a store. Lee et al. (2009)
also validated the signicant effect of the service quality delivered
by self-service kiosks on retail patronage intentions. On the other
hand, Caruana (2002) argued that customer satisfaction played a
moderating role between service quality and loyalty. Similarly,
Dabholkar et al. (2000) found that customer satisfaction strongly
mediated the effect of service quality on behavioral intentions.
More recently, Akbar and Parvez (2009) reported that customer
satisfaction performed a key mediating role between service
quality and customer loyalty and Wu (2011) revealed that perceived value and customer satisfaction were two signicant variables that mediated the relationships between electronic service
quality and customer loyalty. On the basis of the above arguments,
we feel that the effects of perceived service quality on loyalty will
be mediated by satisfaction with services.

4. Methodology
4.1. Measurement
All measurement scales used in this study are selected from
previous studies. For the purposes of this study, we have selected
the constructs that are considered appropriate to use in the
context of retail self-checkouts. Since the SSTQUAL is mainly
designed for a variety of SSTs, we expect that some of the
dimensions such as security/privacy may not be applicable to the
retail self-checkout settings. To measure customer satisfaction, we

122

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

Table 2
Sample characteristics.
Characteristics

Frequency Percentage

Gender
 Male
 Female

108
167

39.3
60.7

89
87
57
27
12
3

32.4
31.6
20.7
9.8
4.4
1.1

Education
 Elementary school
 High school
 College
 Grad school

19
90
144
22

6.9
32.7
52.4
8.0






Frequency of grocery shopping

Daily
2 or 3 times a week
Once a week
Less than once a week

110
122
34
9

40.0
44.4
12.4
3.3

Time spent on shopping

 Less than 30 min
 301 h
 More than 1 h

108
119
48

39.3
43.3
17.5

Average weekly grocery bill ($)

 Less than $50
 Between $50 and $100
 More than $100

92
129
54

33.5
46.9
19.6

85
54
68
43
25

30.9
19.6
24.7
15.6
9.1

49
74
73
51

17.8
26.9
26.5
18.5

Age
Less than 25
2535
3645
4655
5665
Over 65








Frequency of self-checkout
 Always
 Often
 Sometimes
 Rarely
 First time
Top three complaints about self-checkout
 Lack of other information provided by cashiers (such
as promos)
 Gets tedious when more items purchased
 Difcult to purchase items that need to be weighed
 Bagging difculties

have adopted the scales from Bloemer and Ruyter (1998), which
measure satisfaction using four Likert type scales (Overall, I am
very satised with the company; This store conrms my expectations;
I'm really satised with the service quality of this store; I'm really
satised with the service quality of self-checkout in this store).
Finally, customer loyalty was measured using the scales adopted
from Cronin et al. (2000), which measured loyalty using ve Likert
type scales (The probability that I will shop at this store again is; The
likelihood that I would recommend this store to a friend is; If I had to
do it again, I would still shop at this store; I say positive things about
this supermarket to other people; I consider this supermarket as my
primary supermarket).
4.2. Questionnaire design
The measures used in the questionnaire were translated into
Turkish by the authors who are uent in both languages. Back

translation was done by a third person to ensure accuracy of the

original scales in the Turkish retailing context by following the
guidelines suggested in the literature. Expert comments were
sought rst on this version that led to some changes in wording
of the questions in order to maintain their original meanings in
Turkish. Where needed, the wording in the scales was slightly
modied to maintain its meaningfulness and clarity in Turkish.
The instrument then was pretested next with an actual set of
potential supermarket shoppers. Both stages allowed us to rigorously review and revise the survey questions, after which a nal
version was adopted for data collection.
4.3. Data collection
After the process of rening and nalizing the questionnaire,
we used personal interviews to administer the printed questionnaires to the customers of the large supermarket chain whose selfcheckout system offers their shoppers the option to scan, bag and
pay for purchases without cashier assistance, in Adana, the fth
largest city in Turkey. Customers who have completed their
shopping through a self-checkout lane were approached and
asked to participate in the study. The interviewers were instructed
to emphasize that the store management was conducting this
survey and they are very interested in understanding customer
experiences of the self-checkout process and that the store
management was planning to use this information to improve
their offerings. Therefore, it is assumed that the data collection
process was realistic and reected customers' service quality
expectations and experiences.
A major supermarket retail chain agreed to assist with the
survey by administering it to the customers during the shopping
process. Data collection was done during different days of the
week and time periods of the day to get a better representation of
the shoppers. As a result, a total of 275 completed questionnaires
were obtained and deemed to be valid for data analysis in this
study. Descriptive and structural statistical analyses were performed on the data to test the hypothesized relationships in the
conceptual model. The study results offer intriguing and important
ndings for research and practice.

5. Analysis and results

5.1. Sample prole
Table 2 provides information about sample characteristics.
Of the 275 total number of respondents, 108 (39.3%) were male
and 167 (60.7%) were female shoppers. This gender composition is
a reasonable representation of the grocery shoppers in Turkey. The
majority of the respondents were between the ages of 25 and 45,
which supports the ndings of Giesen (2012) and Lee et al. (2009)
regarding the age group that uses self-checkout systems. Also, the
majority (60.4%) of the respondents had a college degree or higher,
which we believe is the most important characteristic of the
customer group who are most likely to use the self-checkouts.
5.2. Reliability analysis
The rst step was to check the construct reliabilities for the
measures used in the study. Table 3 shows the average construct
reliabilities for SST scale.
Table 3 shows that most reliability scores were within the
suggested levels (.70) in the literature, with an exception of the
security/privacy construct. In general we can make a case that
these scores are satisfactory for testing and validating the structure reported in Lin and Hsieh (2011). Alpha is not a good indicator

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

Table 3
Reliability scores of SSTQUAL scale.
Scale dimensions/items

Table 4
Alternative models and t indices.
Reliability coefcients
(Alphas)

Functionality
.905
1. I can get my service done with the rm's SST in a
short time.
2. The service process of the rm's SST is clear.
3. Using the rm's SST requires little effort.
4. I can get service done smoothly with the
rm's SSTs.
5. Each service item/function of the SST is errorfree.
Enjoyment
1. The operation of the rm's SST is interesting.
2. I feel good being able to use the SSTs.
3. The rm's SST has interesting additional
functions.
4. The rm's SST provides me with all relevant
information.

123

.723

Security/privacy
.593
1. I feel safe in my transactions with the rm's SST.
2. A clear privacy policy is stated when I use the
rm's SSTs.
Assurance
1. The rm providing the SST is well-known.
2. The rm providing the SST has a good
reputation.

.874

Design
1. The layout of the rm's SST is aesthetically
appealing.
2. The rm's SST appears to use up-to-date
technology.

.779

Convenience
.740
1. The SST has operating hours convenient to
customers.
2. It is easy and convenient to reach the rm's SST.
Customization
.800
1. The rm's SST understands my specic needs.
2. The rm's SST has my best interests at heart.
3. The rm's SST has features that are personalized
for me.

of unidimentionality and low levels of alpha can be attributed to

the sample homogeneity (Bernardi, 1994) and do not put the
results in question. Usually .70 is desired but Schmitt (1996, p. 351)
states that use of any cutoff value is shortsighted. Accordingly,
when a measure has other desirable properties, the low alpha
scores may not be a major impediment to its use (Schmitt, 1996).
In addition, as coefcient values are relatively receptive to the
number of items in the constructs, particularly when the constructs have fewer than 10 items, as in the case of this research, it
is common to nd coefcient alphas around .50 (Pallant, 2007).
The scale items used in our study have been previously used in the
literature and are considered having sufcient content validity.
With the intention of evaluating whether the correlations
among variables are suitable for factor analysis, we examined
the KaiserMeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMOMSA) (Kaiser, 1970). The value of KMO-MSA was .93 indicating the
data were appropriate for factor analysis. All KMO results were
above .50, which is the minimum cut-off for factor analysis.
Additionally all levels of signicance for Bartlett's test for sphericity are less than .005. KMO results along with the Bartlett results
indicate the data is suitable for factor analysis.

Chi-sq df
Model
Model
Model
Model

1
2
3
4

(one factor)
930.7
(seven factors) 413.6
(six factors)
262.9
(ve factors)
172.8

170
149
104
80

Chi-sq./df GFI CFI NFI RMSEA

.00
.00
.00
.00

5.47
2.77
2.53
2.16

.70
.87
.90
.93

.78
.92
.94
.96

.74
.88
.91
.94

.13
.081
.08
.06

5.3. Measurement model

Conrmatory factor analysis was rst used to estimate the
model parameters and examine the factor structure of the constructs tested. The measurement models were estimated based on
a covariance matrix using the maximum likelihood estimation
method (Cudeck, 1989; Chou and Bentler, 1996) which is the most
commonly used approach in structural equation modeling (SEM).
Multivariate normality was assessed by comparing Mardia's (1970)
coefcient against its critical ratio (Byrne, 2001). The data were
found to be acceptably normal. As noted by MacCallum et al.
(1993), without adequate consideration of alternative equivalent
models, support for one model from a class of equivalent models is
suspect at best and potentially groundless and misleading
(p. 196). Based on this perspective, four alternative models were
tested using AMOS. Table 4 presents the t indices for each of the
four models.
Model 1 represents a single-factor solution incorporating all
20-scale items. If the SSTQUAL is a unidimensional construct, it
would be reected as a single dimension and all 20 items would
theoretically load on one factor. This model did not provide a good
t (RMSEA .13). Model 2 represents how SSTQUAL was originally
expected to be a multidimensional perceived SST service quality
measure, reecting all seven factors. The t indices (GFI .87,
CFI.92, RMSEA .08) for the seven-factor model can be considered moderate but acceptable according to the literature (Lukas
et al., 2003). However, we felt that this model did not provide the
satisfactory t we were seeking and we should pursue higher
levels of t indices. Accordingly, Model 3 and Model 4 are tested.
Although SSTQUAL is specically developed for self-service technologies, it is relatively generic in a sense that there are signicant
variations among SSTs. In other words, the two dimensions
included in the SSTQUAL (security and customization) may not
necessarily be applicable in a retail self-checkout setting because
the security/privacy concerns are not salient and customization is
not expected. Also, especially in Turkish retail environments, there
are multiple attendants who oversee the self-checkouts and they
frequently offer to assist the customers without any request.
Therefore, in the next two models, we pruned these dimensions
one at a time. Results show that the model t is improved in each
case and a ve-factor model yielded the best model t indices. We
stress that the ve-factor model is not a simple discovery in our
pursuit of obtaining better t indices but rather conceptually
meaningful and makes more contextual sense. Hence, we have
adopted Model 4 for structural analysis.
The results of the measurement model for Model 4 (which we
chose to use from the four options, as it allows us to depict a
second order construct, self-checkout service quality, for testing
the causal model) show that the items have good measurement
properties. The correlation matrix shows that all correlation
coefcients are signicant at p o.001 level (Table 5).
CFA results showed that all items had signicant loadings on
their corresponding constructs with signicant t-values (po.001),
the lowest t-value being greater than 8.00. Moreover, all factor
loadings were signicant, indicating convergent validity (Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988). The model had a signicant Chi-square (172.7,

124

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

80, po.000), which was expected given its sensitivity to the sample
size. However, the measurement model provided a good t to the
data based on the following statistics: comparative t index
(CFI) .96, goodness of t index (GFI).93, and root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) .06. Finally, Table 6 presents the
reliability scores, means, standard deviation, loadings and AVEs
(average variance extracted). All AVEs are greater than the criterion
(.5) suggested in the literature with an exception of one latent
variable. The AVEs indicate the acceptable levels of discriminant
validity and hence we consider that the model is acceptable to
continue to test the structural relationships hypothesized in
the model.
Table 7 shows that the standardized loadings estimates are
above .5, AVE estimates are .5 or above (with one exception) and
all CR values are very close to or above .70 (with two exceptions)
indicating adequate convergence or internal consistency. Taken
Table 5
Correlation matrix for constructs.
Constructs
Functionality
Enjoyment
Assurance
Design
Convenience

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

.942
.496
.656
.742

.624
.676
.803

.735
.712

.859

All correlation coefcients are signicant at the .001 level.

together, the evidence provides an initial support for the convergent validity of the ve construct SSC service quality measurement model. Although some statistics may appear to be below the
estimates suggested in the literature, they do not appear to be
signicantly harming the model t or internal consistency. In
addition, the model ts relatively well based on the goodness of t
measures. Therefore, the indicator items are retained at this point
and adequate evidence of convergent validity is provided.
Discriminant validity is the extent to which a construct is truly
distinct from other constructs. To estimate discriminant validity,
we can compare the average variance extracted (AVE) estimates to
the corresponding squared interconstruct correlation estimates
(SIC). Table 7 shows most of the values needed to examine
discriminant validity. AVE for functionality, assurance, design and
convenience demonstrates reasonable discriminant validity but
the enjoyment dimension fails to support it. Although one could
argue that these results present weak validity it is important to
evaluate the results in light of all the information rather than using
a single measure. All but one AVE were equal or higher than the
suggested level in the literature indicating sufcient convergent
validity. Similarly, CRs present a similar pattern and may be
considered acceptable. On the other hand, with an exception of
one construct, SICs were higher than their respective AVEs
indicating weak discriminant validity. One could have potentially
eliminated some constructs or pruned some of the items in each
construct to obtain higher levels of methodological results but that
would have altered the original measurement scale. Considering

Table 6
Psychometric properties and CFA results of constructs.
Mean

S.D.

Load

Functionality ( .91)
1. I can get my service done with the rm's SST in a short time
2. The service process of the rm's SST is clear
3. Using the rm's SST requires little effort
4. I can get service done smoothly with the rm's SSTs
5. Each service item/function of the SST is error-free

4.25
4.16
4.24
4.28
3.81

1.063
1.023
1.026
.973
1.221

.84
.82
.86
.88
.69

Enjoyment ( .73)
1. The operation of the rm's SST is interesting
2. I feel good being able to use the SSTs
3. The rm's SST has interesting additional functions
4. The rm's SST provides me with all relevant information

4.44
4.21
3.46
3.99

.778
1.003
1.111
1.014

.58
.72
.55
.70

Assurance ( .87)
1. The rm providing the SST is well-known
2. The rm providing the SST has a good reputation

4.62
4.56

.696
.739

.88
.88

Design ( .78)
1. The layout of the rm's SST is aesthetically appealing
2. The rm's SST appears to use up-to-date technology

4.26
4.48

1.012
.751

.85
.78

Convenience ( .74)
1. The SST has operating hours convenient to customers
2. It is easy and convenient to reach the rm's SST

4.39
4.35

.840
.852

.70
.84

Customer Satisfaction ( .79)

1. Generally I am very happy with this store
2. I am extremely pleased with the quality of service provided by this store
3. This store meets my expectations
4. I am extremely pleased with the quality of service provided by the self-checkout system

4.45
4.49
4.44
4.24

.755
.701
.739
.983

.83
.83
.81
.49

Loyalty (.89)
1. I would shop in this store again
2. I would recommend this store to any of my friends
3. If I need to shop again, I would come to this store
4. I would speak positively about this store to others
5. This store is my preferred choice

4.60
4.49
4.42
4.42
4.07

.615
.780
.852
.800
1.03

.78
.85
.82
.87
.70

AVE
.67

.42

.77

.67

.60

.68

.65

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

125

Table 7
Five factor completely standardized factor loadings, variance extracted, and reliability estimates.
Items

Func.

F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
E1
E2
E3
E4
A1
A2
D1
D2
C1
C2
Variance Extracted (AVE)
Construct Reliability (CR)
SIC Estimates

.848
.820
.867
.870
.693

Enjoy.

Assur.

Design

Conv.

.561
.727
.537
.713
.888
.876
.827
.806

67.61%
.72
(.89, .25)

41%
.33
(.89, .39)

77.79%
.79
(.54, .25)

66.68%
.69
(.74, .43)

.731
.805
59.12%
.54
(.74, .51)

Item Reliabilities
.72
.67
.75
.76
.48
.61
.53
.29
.51
.79
.77
.68
.65
.53
.65

Eigenv.

3.38

1.64
1.56
1.33
1.18

Delta

Const pairs

IC

SIC

.28
.33
.25
.24
.52
.69
.47
.71
.49
.21
.23
.32
.35
.47
.35

FE
FA
FD
FC
EA
ED
EC
AD
AC
DC

.94
.49
.66
.74
.62
.68
.80
.73
.71
.86

.89
.25
.43
.55
.39
.46
.64
.54
.51
.74

IC Interconstruct correlations; SIC Squared Interconstruct Correlations; Delta Standardized Error Variance; AVE Average Variance Extracted; CR Construct
Reliabilities.

Fig. 2. Structural model tested.

that this scale has been used in the literature and its validity has
been validated before, not altering it is justied even though weak
discriminant validity results are obtained. Future empirical studies
are encouraged to further investigate the reasons for obtaining
marginal validity scores. Moreover, one could make a case not to
focus so much on certain cut-off scores to assess validity but rather
to use the original scale as conceptualized. In this study, we

tested the original measurement scale in a culturally different

environment and in a different context (supermarket self-checkout). Perhaps instead of using an etic approach to make generalizations across cultures that use a single core approach to measure
consumer behavior regardless of the environment, it might be
necessary to focus on more culture-specic measurement scales/
items that are designed to measure the phenomenon of interest in

126

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

each culture. Although we would have preferred to see all AVEs to

be larger than their respective SICs, considering the measurement
model in its entirety, we argue that these results are acceptable
and sufcient to test the hypothesized structure. We think the ve
construct CFA model used in this study demonstrates sufcient
properties to proceed.

5.4. Structural model

Finally, we used a structural model (SEM) to analyze the
relations between perceived self-checkout service quality, satisfaction, and loyalty (Fig. 1). As indicated earlier, this part of our
analysis was to establish the predictive validity of our proposed
structure and measures of self-checkout service quality. It also
corroborates earlier ndings about the relationship between the
variables. SCS service quality represents a second-order factor
which is used to predict satisfaction and loyalty. Fig. 2 shows the
path coefcients and the signicance test results.
The structural model integrates knowledge gained from past
service quality research and is offered more as a corroboration to
link the two constructs: service quality, satisfaction and loyalty.
These constructs are examined in a linear sequence from perceived service quality to satisfaction. All ratios (except SCSloyalty path) are signicant as they are much above the minimum
(p o.05) and with the expected signs. The standardized total
effects of each latent variable on customer satisfaction and loyalty
support the hypothesized relationships. More specically, Hypothesis
1 predicts that SCS service quality will be a positive impact on
customer satisfaction. As Fig. 2 illustrates (also displayed in Table 8),
the lambda coefcient for the relationship between SCS service
quality and satisfaction is positive and signicant (.52, t7.692,
po.001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 predicts that SCS
service quality will have a positive impact on customer loyalty. Fig. 2
and Table 8 show that the lambda coefcient for the relationship
between SCS service quality and loyalty is positive but not signicant
(.01, t.254, p4.799), not providing sufcient support for
Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 predicts that satisfaction will have a
positive impact on loyalty. As Fig. 2 (and Table 8) illustrates, the
lambda coefcient for the relationship between satisfaction and
loyalty is positive and signicant (.83, t10.001, po.001), supporting Hypothesis 3. It is important to note that our argument about
satisfaction mediating the relationship between SCS service quality
and loyalty is supported because the positive effects of the SCS
service quality on loyalty can only be seen in Fig. 2 through the
satisfaction path and the other path is insignicant. The squared
multiple correlations (r-square) in Table 8 indicate that SCS service
quality explains 70% of the variation in the model.

Table 8
Structural model results (Path coefcients/Standardized regression weights).
Structural paths

Standardized
coefcients

Components of SCS service quality

SCS-Functionality
.843
SCS-Enjoyment
.944
SCS-Assurance
.714
SCS-Design
.832
SCS-Convenience
.917
SCS-Satisfaction
.516
SCS-Loyalty
.014
Satisfaction-Loyalty
.832

t-Valuen

Squared
multiple
correlations

11.026
11.630
10.917
11.609
14.258
7.692
.254NS
10.001

.711
.891
.510
.692
.841
.266
.704

2 642 with df 222, p .000, RMSEA .083, GFI .83, CFI .90.
n

All values are signicant at p o.0001 except NS.

6. Conclusion and discussions

Self-service technologies (SSTs) have become an integral part in
consumers' daily lives. Keeping up with the trend, supermarkets
around the world have started to adopt self-checkout systems
(SCSs) at an increasing rate. However, consumers' response to such
changes in service encounters could vary signicantly and inuence their satisfaction with the retailer offerings. As SCSs become a
major trend in supermarket service delivery, investigating the
effects of SCS service quality on customer satisfaction and loyalty
becomes crucial for the supermarkets.
The service quality debate has generated differing views on the
measures and dimensions of service quality (Ladhari, 2008). These
disagreements often originate from the different types of services
studied and the extent of customer interface they involve. However, some of the recent publications in the literature point out to
the need to address self-service technologies (SSTs) that the
customers are being exposed with the advancements in technology and role of service quality of such an interface on customer
satisfaction and loyalty. We agree with the arguments that
measuring service quality using traditional scales such as SERVQUAL may not be effective and specic scales need to be used in
capturing SST service quality dimensions. One such scale
(SSTQUAL) has been recently introduced by Lin and Hsieh (2011)
and its effectiveness has been validated. In this study, we
attempted to use SSTQUAL to measure the service quality for the
supermarket self-checkout systems (SCS) in an emerging market,
namely Turkey, while keeping in mind that the special nature of
such systems might require alterations in the dimensionality of
the SSTQUAL.
As expected, our study ndings showed that younger customers had higher tendencies to use SCSs during their shopping in
supermarkets. These consumers were also savvy with internet and
technology use. Furthermore, ndings also showed that the
biggest complaints about self-checkout lines were related to
difculty of use when more items were purchased and when the
items did not have a bar code (i.e., produce or bulk) and needed to
be weighed.
Conrmatory (CFA) and structural analyses (SEM) were used to
validate the relationships hypothesized in the conceptual model
among constructs. CFA results pointed out to a reduced set
dimensionality of the SSTQUAL. Factor structure conrmed the
presence of ve factors as opposed to the original seven factors.
Further analysis showed that both security/privacy and customization dimensions did not have the appropriate psychometric
properties and hence had to be pruned. We strongly argue that
such an action is justied because of the nature of SCSs as opposed
to the SSTs. In supermarket self-checkouts, customers would have
least concerns for security/privacy issues in contrast to other
systems such as online purchases. Furthermore, SCSs are relatively
simplied and do not allow any form of customization or may not
be needed. Customer interaction with such systems is very short
and concerns for customization are not present. Interestingly
enough, the reduced number of dimensionality is very similar to
the number of dimensions found in established service quality
measurement scales such as SERVQUAL. This brings up the
relevant discussion regarding whether or not researchers should
focus on testing and validating the existing scales in different
contextual and cultural environments or develop specic scales for
different settings. Further investigation and conceptualization on
this issue is needed.
Based on our ndings, we feel that ve dimensions (functionality, enjoyment, design, assurance, and convenience) identied for
the SCS service quality would allow customers to assess service
quality of the supermarket self-checkouts. As described by Lin and
Hsieh (2011), functionality refers to the characteristics of the self-

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

checkout including ease of use, responsiveness and reliability.

Enjoyment captures the perception with the use of the system.
Design refers to the overall system and assurance portrays the
condence and competence of the retailer (service provider).
Finally, convenience is related to the accessibility of the checkout
service offered.
As hypothesized, SEM results showed a positive and statistically
signicant relationship between self-checkout service quality and
customer satisfaction (H1). However, our results did not provide
support for the direct effect (H2) between self-checkout service
quality and customer loyalty but the indirect effect on customer
loyalty through the customer satisfaction path is supported (H3).
Finally, as hypothesized, results supported the positive link between
customer satisfaction and loyalty. Based on these results, it is
important for the supermarkets to spend concerted efforts in understanding how their customers evaluate their self-checkout systems
and identify the factors that might inuence customer satisfaction/
dissatisfaction with their use of such systems. These factors could
provide necessary information for the supermarket to improve
satisfaction and or plan for alternative methods/means to deal with
the self-checkout service delivery issues.
Given the criticism SERVQUAL faced in the literature as mentioned earlier, this study provides insights into how service quality
may be bridged and addressed in the self-service technologies.
However, it is important to note that even if we sued SSTQUAL, the
dimensions identied in this study were not signicantly different
from the SERVQUAL dimensions. Thus, while SERVQUAL occupies
an important place in service quality evaluations, for supermarket
self-checkout situations our study shows that specic aspects of
SSTQUAL are best reected in ve different dimensions. Thus, our
study does not refute SERVQUAL or SSTQUAL but reframes them.
This reframing, however, may vary for different industries and
cultural environments, suggesting the need for additional studies
along this line of reasoning to explain the variations found in
service quality studies. Thus, in some industries involving selfcheckouts, there may be two- or four-dimensional service quality
assessments. This needs to be investigated in future research.
Our results represent an incremental contribution to the
service quality literature, particularly from an emerging environment of service encounters, structural and measurement perspective, suggesting the need to consider the unique measurement
scales when measuring service quality for self-checkout services.
Specically, with respect to measuring service quality of supermarket self-checkouts, it appears that the construct is represented
adequately by ve dimensions of SSTQUAL. Structural analysis
showed that self-checkout service quality is found to have a
positive and statistically signicant effect on customer satisfaction
and ultimately customer loyalty in supermarkets. Moreover, the
relationships identied in this study were based on a culturally
different international environment which provides further
evidence on the construct validity and applicability of service
quality measurement in different environments.

7. Theoretical implications
Cross-cultural research could be very valuable in terms of
making contribution to the theory development by applying and
testing existing relationships among constructs in culturally different market environments. Accordingly, researchers during the
past several decades used both etic and emic approaches to
provide support for the conceptualized relationships among marketing variables (Brislin, 1976). The objective of the etic approach
is to make generalizations across cultures that take into account all
human behavior while the objective of emic approach has been to
document the valid principles that describe consumer behavior in

127

specic cultures. In other words, researchers have attempted to

justify whether they should develop a single core approach to
measure consumer behavior in all cultures or instead focus on
culture-specic items which are designed to measure the
phenomenon of interest in each culture.
In this study, we have attempted to understand the applicability of the previously developed SST service quality measurement scale (SSTQUAL) proposed by Lin and Hsieh (2011) in
assessing service quality of supermarket self-checkout systems in
Turkey. Our ndings provided further support for the dimensionality of the measure but with a reduced number of dimensions
that would be considered more applicable in measuring service
quality of the supermarket self-checkouts. Several hypothesized
relationships among the service quality and the other constructs
appeared to be holding in Turkish environment. Future studies are
needed to further validate and clarify the relationships between
SCS service quality, satisfaction and loyalty by perhaps utilizing
emic approaches in understanding the relationship between these
variables. To this end, specic measurement scales in measuring
service quality for the self-checkout systems could be developed
for different cultural environments and the relationships between
the relevant constructs should be reassessed.

8. Managerial and public policy implications

For practitioners, the ndings of this study suggest that supermarket self-checkout service quality has an important positive role
on customer satisfaction and ultimately on customer loyalty. It is
important for providers of SCSs to investigate their customers'
experiences and evaluations of such technologies and identify
different factors that might inuence dis/satisfaction with
technology-based service encounters. For the rms that currently
offer or contemplate to offer or plan to expand self-checkout
systems, identication of such factors could provide valuable
insight about the role of self-checkouts on customer satisfaction
and loyalty. Consumer complaints and dissatisfaction with the
self-checkouts could contribute signicantly in accounting the
variation in consumer behavior. Therefore, rather than simply
offering such services because everybody else does it, supermarkets need to assess service quality of such offerings periodically and customer complaints and dissatisfactions need to be
resolved timely.

9. Study limitations and future research

It should be noted that this study has certain limitations. Perhaps
the main limitation is the representativeness of the samples used in
this study. First, it was a convenient sample collected from a single
supermarket in the south eastern part of Turkey; therefore, its
generalizability to the entire population is limited. However, please
note that the data was collected during the shopping process and
the supermarket chain used in the study was one of the supermarkets that had the largest market share in the Turkish market.
Although the sample size was adequate for this study, our ndings
should be replicated using larger samples taken from different
supermarkets and from different parts of the country.
Second, although we have used a valid SST service quality
measurement instrument (SSTQUAL), some dimensions of the
original scale had to be pruned due to its applicability (or lack
thereof) to the supermarket self-checkout environment and low
factor loadings. Hence, our study results did not provide strong
conrmation of the stability of the SSTQUAL factor structure in the
supermarket setting. The reduced number of service quality
dimensions of the SSTQUAL needs to be tested and further

128

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

validated in the supermarket SCS contexts. We recommend the

development of more specic measurement instruments for the
SCSs used in the supermarkets.
Third, while we mainly focused on the role of the service
quality during customers' self-checkout encounter, it must be
acknowledged that other factors may also drive satisfaction. It
may be emphasized that behind each service experience of
assurance, responsiveness, etc., there are actors who may or may
not be recognized or named by the service recipient. But that does
not negate their contribution; it only established their relative
importance to the service seeker.
Finally, the supermarket chain used in this study is considered
one of the largest supermarket chains in Turkey and has a very
good image among Turkish consumers. Such a strong market
position or image might have introduced a bias into consumers'
evaluations of self-checkouts. It is important that future studies
incorporate other moderating and mediating factors in examining
the impact of SCS service quality on customer satisfaction and
loyalty. The role of corporate image on customer satisfaction may
be used as a moderating factor. To enhance the generalizability of
the research ndings, future inquiries could employ more diversied samples and diverse national customer environments.

References
Akbar, M., Parvez, N., 2009. Impact of service quality, trust, and customer on
satisfaction on customers' loyalty. ABAC Journal 29 (1), 2438.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),
411423.
Anitsal, I., Flint, D.J., 2006. Exploring customers' perceptions in creating and
delivering value technology-based self-service. Services Marketing Quarterly
27, 5772.
Athanassopoulos, A., Gounaris, S., Stathakopoulos, V., 2000. Behavioral responses to
customer satisfaction: an empirical study. European Journal of Marketing 35 (5/6),
687707.
Babakus, E., Boller, G.W., 1992. An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale.
Journal of Business Research 24, 253268.
Barnes, S., Vidgen, R., 2001. An evaluation of cyberbookshops: the WebQual
method. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6 (1), 1130.
Bauer, H.H., Falk, T., Hammerschmidt, M., 2006. eTransQual: a transaction processbased approach for capturing service quality in online shopping. Journal of
Business Research 59 (7), 866875.
Bearden, W.O., Teel, J.E., 1983. Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and
complaint behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 20, 2128.
Bernardi, R.A., 1994. Validating research results when Cronbach's Alpha is
below.70: a methodological procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement 54 (3), 766775.
Bitner, M.J., Zeithaml, V.A., 2003. Service Marketing, third ed. Tata McGraw Hill,
New Delhi.
Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., Meuter, M.L., 2002. Implementing successful self-service
technologies. Academy of Management Executive 16 (4), 96109.
Bitner, M.J., 1995. Building service relationships: it's all about promises. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (4), 246252.
Bloemer, J., Ruyter, K.D., 1998. On the relationship between store image, store
satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 32 (5/6), 499513.
Bloemer, J., Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., 1999. Linking perceived service quality and
service loyalty: a multi-dimensional perspective. European Journal of Marketing
33 (11/12), 10821106.
Bloemer, J.M., Kasper, H.D., 1995. The complex relationship between consumer
satisfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology 16 (2), 311329.
Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N., 1999. A dynamic model of customers' usage of services:
usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing
Research 36 (2), 171186.
Bolton, R.N., Drew, J.H., 1991. A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service
changes on customer attitudes. Journal of Marketing 55 (1), 19.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., Zeithaml, V.A., 1993. A dynamic process model of
service quality: from expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing
Research 30, 727.
Brady, M.K., Robertson, C.J., 2001. Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role
of service quality and satisfaction: exploratory cross-national study. Journal of
Business Research 51, 5360.
Brislin, R.W., 1976. Comparative research methodology: cross-cultural studies.
International Journal of Psychology 11 (3), 215229.
Brown, T.J., Churchill, G.A., Peter, J.P., 1993. Improving the measurement of service
quality. Journal of Retailing 69 (1), 127139.

Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOSBasic Concepts,

Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Publishers,
Mahwah, NJ.
Carman, J.M., 1990. Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the
SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing 66 (1), 3355.
Caruana, A., 2002. Service loyalty: the effects of service quality and the mediating
role of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing 36 (7/8), 811828.
Choi, K.S., Hanjoon, L., Chankon, K., Sunhee, L., 2005. The service quality dimensions
and patient satisfaction relationship in South Korea: comparisons across
gender, age, and types of service. Journal of Services Marketing 19 (3),
140149.
Chou, C.P., Bentler, P.M., 1996. Estimates and Tests in Structural Equation Modeling.
In: Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 3755.
Churchill, G.A., Surprenant, C., 1982. An investigation into the determinants of
customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 19, 491504.
Cronin, J.J., Taylor, S.A., 1992. Measuring service quality: a re-examination and
extension. Journal of Marketing 56 (3), 5568.
Cronin Jr., J.J., Brady, M.K., Hult, G.T., 2000. Assessing the effects of quality, value,
and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments. Journal of Retailing 76 (2), 193218.
Cudeck, R., 1989. Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure
models. Psychological Bulletin, 317327.
Dabholkar, P.A., 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), 2951.
Dabholkar, P.A., Shepherd, C.D., Thorpe, D., 2000. A comprehensive framework for
service quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues
through a longitudinal study. Journal of Retailing 76 (2), 139173.
Dabholkar, P.A., Bobbitt, L.M., Lee, E.J., 2003. Understanding consumer motivation
and behavior related to self-scanning in retailing: implications for strategy and
research on technology-based self-service. International Journal of Service
Industry Management 14 (1), 5995.
Ding, D.X., Hu, P.J.H., Sheng, O.R.L., 2011. e-SELFQUAL: a scale for measuring online
self-service quality. Journal of Business Research 64 (5), 508515.
Ehigie, B.O., 2006. Correlates of customer loyalty to their bank: a case study in
Nigeria. International Journal of Bank Marketing 24 (7), 494508.
Fitzsimmons, J.A., 2003. Is self-service the future of services? Managing Service
Quality 13 (6), 443444.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J., Bryant, B.E., 1996. The American
customer satisfaction index: description, ndings, and implications. Journal of
Marketing 60 (4), 718.
Furrer, O., Shaw-Ching, Liu B., Sudharshan, D., 2002. The relationships between culture
and service quality perceptions. Journal of Service Research 2 (4), 355371.
Giesen, L., 2012. Man vs. Machine. NRF Stores, January.
Grimes, W., 2004. When the cashier is you. New York Times, April, 7. New York, NY
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/dining/just-browsing-when-the-cashieris-you.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm.
Grnroos, C., 2001. The perceived service quality concepta mistake? Managing
Service Quality 11 (3), 150152.
Holmen, L., Buzek G., 2012. Market Study: North American Self-Service Kiosks. IHL
Group, www.ihlservices.com/ihl/public_downloads/pdf5.pdf. Document retrieved
on February 11, 2013.
Hsieh, C.T., 2005. Implementing self-service technology to gain competitive
advantage. Communications of IIMA 5, 7783.
Jacoby, J., Kyner, D.B., 1973. Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal of
Marketing Research 10, 19.
Kheng, L.L., Mahamad, O., Ramayah, T., Mosahab, R., 2010. The impact of service
quality on customer loyalty: a study of banks in Penang, Malaysia. International
Journal of Marketing Studies 2 (2), 5766.
Kaiser, H.F., 1970. A second generation little. Psychometrika 35, 401415.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., 1996. Principles of Marketing. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Ladhari, R., 2008. Alternative measures of service quality: a review. Managing
Service Quality 18 (1), 6586.
Lee, J., Lee, J., Feick, F., 2001. The impact of the switching costs on the customer
satisfactionloyalty link: mobile phone service in France. Journal of Services
Marketing 15 (1), 3548.
Lee, H.J., Fairhurst, A.E., Lee, M.Y., 2009. The importance of self-service kiosks in
developing consumers' retail patronage intentions. Managing Service Quality
19 (6), 687701.
Lin, J.S.C., Hsieh, P.L., 2011. Assessing the self-service technology encounters: development and validation of SSTQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing 87 (2), 194206.
Lukas, B.A., Tan, J.J., Hult, G.T.M., 2003. Strategic t in transitional economies: the
case of China's electronics industry. Journal of Management 27, 409429.
MacCallum, R.C., Wegener, D.T., Uchino, B.N., Leandre, R., Fabrigar, L.R., 1993. The
problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance analysis. Psychological Bulletin 114, 185189.
Mardia, Kanti V., 1970. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with
applications. Biometrics 57, 519530.
Marzocchi, G.L., Zammit, A., 2006. Self-scanning technologies in retail: determinants of adoption. The Service Industries Journal 26 (6), 651669.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I., Bitner, M.J., 2000. Self-service technologies: understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service
encounters. Journal of Marketing 64, 5064.
Mishra, A.A., 2009. A study on customer satisfaction in Indian retail banking. IUP
Journal of Management Research 8 (11), 4561.

F.D. Orel, A. Kara / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 118129

NCR, 2001. NCR Self-Checkout a Hit with Shoppers at Turkey's Largest Retail Chain.
Press Release, GA: NCR Corporation.
Oliver, Richard L., 1999. Whence customer loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63, 3344.
Oliver, Richard L., 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer.
Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pallant, J.F., 2007. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis
using SPSS, third ed. Open University Press, Mc-Graw Hill Education, Berkshire,
England.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale
for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64
(1), 1240.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Malhotra, A., 2005. E-S-QUALa multiple-item
scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research 7 (3),
213233.
Pearson, N., 1996. Building brands directly: creating business value from customer
relationships. Macmillan Business 20 (6), 6882.
Reichheld, F.F., 2001. Lead for loyalty. Harvard Business Review 79 (7), 76.
Ribbink, D., Riel, A., Liljander, V., Streukens, S., 2004. Comfort your online customer:
quality, trust and loyalty on the Internet. Managing Service Quality 14 (6),
446456.
Robertson, N., Shaw, R., 2008. Consumer dissatisfaction with self-service technologies: an empirical exploration of its antecedents. In: Proceedings of the GBATA
2008: Global Business and Technology Association Tenth International Conference, Global Business and Technology Association, New York, pp. 923930.
Schmitt, N., 1996. Uses and abuses of coefcient alpha. Psychological Assessment 8
(4), 350353.
Shankar, V., Smith, A.K., Rangaswamy, A., 2003. Customer satisfaction and loyalty in
online and ofine environments. International Journal of Research in Marketing
20 (2), 153175.
Siddiqi, K.O., 2011. Interrelations between service quality attributes, customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty in the retail banking sector in Bangladesh.
International Journal of Business and Management 6 (3), 1236.

129

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C., Anantharaman, R.N., 2002. The relationship

between service quality and customer satisfactiona factor specic approach.
Journal of Services Marketing 16 (4), 363379.
Szymanski, D.M., Henard, D.H., 2001. Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the
empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29, 1635.
Teas, R.K., 1993. Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers' perceptions
of quality. Journal of Marketing 57 (4), 1834.
Vanniarajan, T., Anbazhagan, B., 2007. SERVPERF Analysis in Retail Banking.
International Marketing Conference on Marketing & Society. 810 April, 2007,
IIMK, pp. 725736.
Vargo, S.L, Lusch, R.L., 2008. Why service? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 36, 2538.
Woodruff, R.B., Cadotte, E.R., Jenkins, R.L., 1983. Modeling consumer satisfaction
process using experience-based norms. Journal of Marketing Research 20,
296304.
Wolnbarger, M., Gilly, M.C., 2003. eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring and
predicting etail quality. Journal of Retailing 79 (3), 183198.
Wu, K.W., 2011. Customer loyalty explained by electronic recovery service quality:
implications of the customer relationship re-establishment for consumer
electronics e-tailers. Contemporary Management Research 7 (1), 2144.
Yang, Z., Jun, M., Peterson, R.T., 2004. Measuring customer perceived online service
quality scale development and managerial implications. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 24 (11), 11491174.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an
Internet shopping site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce 2
(1), 3146.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J., 2003. Services Marketing, 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, Irwin,
Boston, MA.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Malhotra, A., 2002. Service quality delivery through
web sites: a critical review of extant knowledge. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 30 (4), 362375.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing 60, 3146.