Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure in public

self-service technology acceptance

Katja Gelbrich
Department of International Management, Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany, and
Britta Sattler
Department of Marketing, University of Technology Ilmenau, Ilmenau, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose and to test a model that illustrates the impact of technology anxiety on the intention to use a self-
service technology (SST) in public. The study includes two context variables that are relevant in public settings: perceived crowding and perceived time
pressure.
Design/methodology/approach – A cross-sectional survey was conducted to reflect individual perceptions and intentions when initially using a self-
checkout. The proposed relationships and interaction effects were examined using structural equation modeling.
Findings – The analysis confirms the core relationships of the model (technology self-efficacy ! technology anxiety ! perceived ease of use !
intention to use) and yields three important results. First, technology anxiety has a direct negative effect on intention to use, which is greater than the
indirect effect through the reduction of ease of use. Second, perceived crowding reinforces the negative effect of technology anxiety. Third, when
perceived crowding coincides with perceived time pressure, technology anxiety almost completely inhibits the intention to use the SST in public.
Research limitations/implications – Technology anxiety is examined as the only antecedent of perceived ease of use.
Practical implications – Initial encounters to public self-service technologies should be provided in servicescapes that avoid or at least reduce
perceptions of crowding and time pressure.
Originality/value – The approach highlights the impact of technology anxiety on the acceptance of self-service technologies used in public by
considering two context variables that are salient in public settings: perceived crowding and perceived time pressure.

Keywords Self-service technologies, Technology acceptance, Crowding, Public use, Technology anxiety, Time pressure

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Technology anxiety is an apprehensive feeling when faced
with the possibility of using a new technology (Meuter et al.,
2003). In the context of computer usage, technology anxiety
is shown to decrease perceived ease of use and subsequent
intention to use (e.g. Phang et al., 2006; Venkatesh, 2000;
Venkatesh and Bala, 2008). The effect of technology anxiety
is particularly strong at an early phase of the adoption process
(Venkatesh et al., 2003), when individuals mentally consider
usage for the first time (Rogers, 2003), prior to actual use
(Nabih et al., 1997). The inhibiting effect of technology
anxiety on technology acceptance may also apply to publicly
used self-service technologies (SSTs) like car-rental kiosks
(Zhu et al., 2007), self-scanning devices (Weijters et al.,
2007), or self-checkouts (Dabholkar et al., 2003). These
SSTs differ from privately (i.e. home) used SSTs like online
shopping or virtual try-on of apparel in that they are created
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
“on-site” rather than “off-site” (Dabholkar and Bagozzi,
2002).
With a few exceptions (e.g. Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002),
prior research on SST acceptance hardly addresses this
peculiarity. The effect of technology anxiety has only been
examined in cross-sectional studies that do not distinguish
between publicly vs privately used SSTs (Meuter et al., 2003;
Oyedele and Simpson, 2007). As a consequence, there is a
lack of knowledge on the effect of technology anxiety when
using an SST in public. In the present research, it is argued
that initial rejection occurs because public SST usage entails
two situational variables – perceived crowding and perceived
time pressure – that reinforce the effect of technology anxiety.
Perceived crowding is a subjective unpleasant feeling
(Bateson, 2000) that occurs when an environment is judged
as dysfunctionally dense (Eroglu and Harrell, 1986)1. It may
arise when publicly using an SST because consumers use the
service “on-site” (e.g. in a retail store). Prior research in
traditional shopping situations shows that consumers, who are
sensitive to crowded situations, tend to buy impulsively
(Mattila and Wirtz, 2008), to purchase less or leave the shop
(Grossbart et al., 1990) and to show a decrease in shopping
satisfaction (Machleit et al., 2000). Whiting (2009)
demonstrated that consumers in crowded retail settings
frequently use coping strategies like distancing, avoidance or

Journal of Services Marketing

28/1 (2014) 82– 94 Received 28 February 2012
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] Revised 27 August 2012
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-02-2012-0051] Accepted 24 October 2012

82
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler
escape. For the present research, it is proposed that the stress
entailed in perceived crowding reinforces the negative effect of
technology anxiety on the public use of SSTs.
Perceived time pressure describes the “degree to which one
perceives oneself as lacking time relative to the daily tasks of
living” (Alreck et al., 2009, p. 1). It may become relevant for
public SST usage because creating a service “on-site” usually
requires that consumers perform the service when it is their
turn (e.g. at a self-checkout). It can be argued that individuals
pressed for time tend to be stressed (Maule et al., 2000), which
may reinforce the negative impact of technology anxiety.
In summary, the present research aims to examine the
moderating effect of perceived crowding and time pressure on
the relationship between technology anxiety and the
acceptance of publicly used SSTs. It helps to explain why
people initially refrain from using SSTs in public and
addresses two moderators (i.e. crowding and time pressure)
that derive from the public exposure entailed in the usage of
such services. Moreover, it examines the three-way
interactions of these moderators, thus acknowledging that
situational factors may coincide.
Theory and hypotheses
Public use of SSTs
Self-service technologies can be used without direct employee
involvement: Consumers use a technological interface to
produce a service by themselves (Meuter et al., 2000).
However, the context of usage may differ remarkably from
one another (Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002). Technologies
found in “on-site” situations can be referred to as public
SSTs, which means that the consumer “goes to service site
and uses technology to provide service for self” (Dabholkar,
1994, p. 247) (e.g. using automated teller machines (ATMs),
interactive kiosks, and self-checkouts). Technologies used in
“off-site” situations (i.e. from the comfort of the own home or
office) can be referred to as private SSTs. They are often
based on telephone usage (e.g. telephone banking) or internet
applications like online shopping (Gefen et al., 2003) or
online banking (Curran and Meuter, 2005).
The distinction used in this paper is based on context: It
refers to public SST usage (i.e. in open places) vs private SST
usage (i.e. in closed settings). Private SST usage usually can
be performed at any time (24 hours) and at any place (only
online or telephone access necessary), whereas public SST
usage (e.g. of a self check out in a retail store) must be
performed at a predetermined time (once shoppers have
queued) and a given place that may be associated with close
presence of strangers. Such objective restrictions may enhance
the inhibiting effect of anxiety on behaviour (Maule et al.,
2000; Svenson and Maule, 1993). Hence, this research uses
an anxiety-based model of technology acceptance.
Anxiety-based model of public SST acceptance
Our model centres on technology anxiety (see Figure 1). The
consequences of anxiety are rooted in the Technology
Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008);
its major antecedent is derived from Social Cognitive Theory
(Bandura, 1997, 1986, 1977).
TAM3 is introduced by Venkatesh and Bala (2008). TAM3
is an advancement of the technology acceptance model
(TAM) introduced by Davis (1989, 1986), which in turn, is
rooted in Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned
83
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94
action (TRA). TRA claims that the motivation of people to
perform an action (behavioural intention) depends on their
attitude towards this behaviour (attitude) and the way other
people think of this behaviour (subjective norm) (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980). Transferred to the context of computer
systems, TAM suggests two major antecedents to attitude
towards technology and subsequent intention to use this
technology: Perceived usefulness (i.e. belief that using the
technology increases one’s performance) and perceived ease
of use (i.e. belief that using the technology does not require
much effort) (Davis, 1989).1
Extending the original TAM, TAM2 mainly deals with the
antecedents to perceived usefulness, including subjective
norm (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). However, perceived
usefulness is more relevant for products than for self-service
technologies, which consumers do not own, but only use
(Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002). Hence, the model presented
in Figure 1 does not draw on TAM2, but on TAM3, which
focuses on the antecedents to perceived ease of use. A major
claim of TAM3 is that an individual’s early perceptions of a
technology’s perceived ease of use depend on a number of so-
called anchor variables, which are this individual’s general
beliefs about the respective technology (Venkatesh and Bala,
2008). One of these anchor variables is computer anxiety,
which is an “individual’s apprehension, or even fear, when
she/he is faced with the possibility of using computers”
(Venkatesh, 2000, p. 349). While TAM3 was developed to
explain computer acceptance, this article uses the term
technology anxiety because SSTs may come in various forms
that are not restricted to personal computers.
Venkatesh and Bala (2008) capture anxiety as a trait
construct, which describes a general belief about technology
(e.g. “Computers make me feel uneasy”). However, like other
computer (Cambre and Cook, 1985; Raub, 1981) and SST
researchers (Collier and Sherrell, 2010), this article
conceptualises technology anxiety as a state construct (i.e. a
consumer emotion). It is triggered by a particular
consumption event or service encounter (Bagozzi et al.,
1999), such as public exposure to an SST.
Prior research shows that technology anxiety decreases
perceived ease of use, which in turn facilitates the intention to
use information technology (Phang et al., 2006; Venkatesh
and Bala, 2008). It is argued that computer anxiety has a
particularly strong effect on perceived ease of use when
considering use for the first time. This is because in such an
early phase of the adoption process, people are unable to
assess the quality of the technology and just build on their
general beliefs of technology when assessing ease of use
(Venkatesh and Bala, 2008). Drawing on the emotion-as-
information approach (Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz and Clore,
2003), the same reasoning can be used for the state concept of
technology anxiety. It is proposed that technology anxiety
mitigates ease of use, which in turn affects intention to use.
Although not indicated in TAM3, it can be advanced that
there is a direct negative effect of technology anxiety on
intention to use (see Figure 1). This is because appraisal
theorists argue and show empirically that emotions foster
specific action tendencies (Lazarus, 1991; Moors, 2009). The
predominating action tendency for anxiety is avoidance: The
respective individuals refrain from contact with the aversive
stimulus (Frijda et al., 1989; Rohner, 2004). In the context of
SSTs, it means that consumers, who have apprehensive
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler
Figure 1 Anxiety-based model of intention to use an SST in public
feelings when they think of using a new technology, may
rather not intent to use this technology.
The major antecedent to technology anxiety can be explained
by social cognitive theory. This theory posits self-efficacy as a
driver of individual motivation and behaviour, particularly in
performance situations (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is “a
judgment of one’s ability to organize and execute given types of
performances” (Bandura, 1997, p. 21). Transferred to the
acceptance of technologies, self-efficacy refers to the degree to
which a person believes that she/he is able to use a technology
to accomplish a particular task. Self-efficacy is similar to the
construct of perceived behavioural control (i.e. an individual’s
beliefs about the ease or difficulty of performing a behaviour)
introduced in Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour
(TPB), which extends the previously-mentioned theory of
reasoned action by this additional predictor.
In the computer research context, self-efficacy is shown to
reduce anxiety related to using a new technology (Compeau
and Higgins, 1995; Compeau et al., 1999; Igbaria and Iivari,
1995; Lam and Lee, 2006). Moreover, an individual’s self-
efficacy has a positive effect on the perceived ease of use
(Agarwal et al., 2000; Igbaria and Iivari, 1995; Lewis et al.,
2003; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Davis, 1996). Hence,
it is proposed that self-efficacy decreases technology anxiety
and increases perceived ease of use (see Figure 1).
The moderating effect of perceived crowding and
perceived time pressure
As discussed previously, the public use of SSTs entails
restrictions that are reflected in two contextual variables:
perceived crowding and time pressure. These variables are
expected to moderate two relationships in the anxiety-based
model of public SST acceptance (see Figure 2).
Perceived crowding
Perceived crowding is a negative subjective experience that
occurs when individuals perceive excessive density negatively
and experience sensory and social overload (Rapoport, 1975).
This experience implies stress due to the agitation caused by
being too close to other individuals. That is why, “. . . the
simplest possible approach is to think of crowding as a
stressful situation” (Freedman et al., 1971, p. 12). This effect
may be reinforced in public places involving strangers (Vine,
1981). Hence, the possibility of perceived crowding and
subsequent stress is particularly vital in public consumption
settings like supermarkets (Aylott and Mitchell, 1998) and
department stores (Mackintosh et al., 1975) or in service
84
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94
settings like railway stations (Hui and Bateson, 1990), banks
(Hui and Bateson, 1991), or discos (Pons et al., 2006)2.
It can be proposed that perceived crowding in public settings
reinforces the effect of technology anxiety on intention to use
because using an SST for the first time requires considerable
concentration, understanding, and other cognitive resources
(Meuter et al., 2005). It has been shown, that stress impairs
attention (Vedhara et al., 2000) and working memory (Oei
et al., 2006) and that environmental stress, in particular,
adversely affects performance (Lieberman et al., 2002). Hence,
anxiety may better unfold its inhibiting effect in crowded
settings. The following moderating effect of perceived
crowding on the relationship between technology anxiety and
intention to use is hypothesised:
H1a. The negative effect of technology anxiety on the
intention to use is greater when consumers perceive
high crowding than when they perceive low crowding.
In a similar vein, perceived crowding is expected to moderate
the relationship between perceived ease of use and intention
to use. The non-interactive social presence of strangers
induces stress (Argo et al., 2005), which reduces cognitive
abilities necessary to perform a task or recall something
(Stockdale, 1978). As the initial use of a new technology
requires considerable cognitive efforts (Czaja et al., 2006),
people may no longer rely on their own assessment of ease of
use, but rather become paralyzed. This reasoning leads to the
following hypothesis:
H1b. The positive effect of perceived ease of use on the
intention to use is smaller when consumers perceive
high crowding than when they perceive low crowding.
Perceived time pressure
Time pressure illustrates, how consumer experience time
availability and sacrifice (Kulviwat et al., 2004). It occurs
when decisions have to be made or special behaviors have to
be performed in a time period that is shorter than the period
required to adequately complete the task (Punj and Stewart,
1983). Such a temporal limitation is perceived as stressful
(Maule et al., 2000; Ordónez and Benson, 1997).
Individuals under time pressure tend to simplify their
search for information and decision strategies (Svenson and
Maule, 1993) and show reduced memory performance
(Earles et al., 2004) or an increased priority for negative
information (Ben-Zur and Breznitz, 1981). It has been
demonstrated that time pressure negatively affects perceived
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler
Figure 2 Hypothesized effects of perceived crowding and perceived time pressure
service quality (Strombeck and Wakefield, 2008). There is
also evidence of time pressure effects in shopping situations
like unplanned purchase (Park et al., 1989), brand switching,
and failures in purchase (Park et al., 1989). In general,
consumers under time pressure often choose products they
normally would not choose (Dholakia, 2000).
Applied to the retail context and daily shopping, consumers
tend to be task-oriented, that is, they seek to complete their
shopping in a given time (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990). Such
task orientation may be particularly vital when paying in a retail
store because checkout hardly provides hedonic benefits, but
consumers simply want to get it done quickly (Zeithaml and
Bitner, 2003). In such a situation, it can be expected that
perceived time pressure and subsequent stress intensify
negative situational arousal, which in turn strengthens the
effect of technology anxiety on intention to use:
H2a. The negative effect of technology anxiety on the intention
to use is greater when consumers perceive high time
pressure than when they perceive low time pressure.
In addition, it is proposed that perceived time pressure
moderates the positive relationship between perceived ease of
use and behavioral intention. Perceived time pressure entails
stress (Ordónez and Benson, 1997), which diminishes
attention (Vedhara et al., 2000), cognitive performance
(Lieberman et al., 2002), and working memory (Oei et al.,
2006). Such cognitive resources, however, are necessary to
recognize the benefits of a technology. This is particularly
crucial for assessing an unknown innovative technology for
which the individual cannot draw on previous experiences
(Meuter et al., 2005). Additionally, individuals under time
pressure tend to accelerate information processing (Ben-Zur
and Breznitz, 1981), so that features of the self-service
technology are evaluated and appreciated less intensively. As a
consequence, a mitigating effect of perceived time pressure on
the relationship between perceived ease of use and intention
to use is likely to occur:
H2b. The positive effect of perceived ease of use on the
intention to use is smaller when consumers perceive
high time pressure than when they perceive low time
pressure.
Perceived crowding £ perceived time pressure
As argued for H1a, perceived crowding in public settings entail
stress because of the social intrusion by unfamiliar others
(Baker and Cameron, 1996) and because of potentially
85
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94
unwanted interactions (Baum and Valins, 1979). This stress
is likely to be even reinforced when the respective individuals
also feel pressed for time. This is because people under time
pressure need to work harder to compensate for the lack of
time (Hockey, 1997). In the context at hand, the task to use a
new SST in public may appear even more difficult and risky
and thus, more stressful. Hence, the cognitive abilities
necessary to use the technology may further decrease, which
suggests a particularly strong effect of technology anxiety on
intention to use the SST in public when perceived crowding
and time pressure coincide:
H3a. There is a three-way interaction effect of perceived
crowding and perceived time pressure on the
relationship between technology anxiety and intention
to use, such that anxiety has a stronger negative effect
on intention to use for high as compared to low
perceived crowding, particularly when perceived time
pressure is high.
In a similar vein, one may expect a three-way interaction in the
relationship between perceived ease of use and intention to use.
As argued for H1b, the stress entailed in perceived crowding is
likely to reduce one’s cognitive abilities (Mackintosh et al.,
1975) and efforts (Czaja et al., 2006) so that people do not
intend to use the service even though they believe that it is easy
to use. Individuals pressed for time, who are alienated by the
presence of many strangers around them (McCain et al., 1985),
may become even more reluctant to use a new technology since
they need to accomplish a new task (i.e. using a self-checkout)
in a certain time. Hence, people may rather refrain from using
the new SST even though it appears easy to use:
H3b. There is a three-way interaction effect of perceived
crowding and perceived time pressure on the
relationship between perceived ease of use and
intention to use, such that perceived ease of use has
a weaker effect on intention to use for high as
compared to low perceived crowding, particularly
when perceived time pressure is high.
It is proposed that perceived crowding and perceived time
pressure only unfold their inhibiting effects with regard to
intention to use, that is in the relationships, which entail
behavioral intentions as the dependent variable. This is because
the two moderators relate to the public context (Berry et al.,
2002; Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002; Machleit et al., 1994) in
which the SST is embedded. We propose that context only
comes into play when people actually indicate action
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler
tendencies. In contrast, no moderating effect is hypothesized
for the relationships between “self-efficacy” ! “technology
anxiety”,“self-efficacy” ! “perceived ease of use” and
“technology anxiety” ! “perceived ease of use”.
This is because the respective constructs relate to a mere
user-technology interaction; they focus on an evaluation of the
individual ability and skill required to deal with the
complexity of the technology (“Am I able to handle the
technology?”). In particular, self-efficacy is a belief of one’s
ability to accomplish a particular task (Bandura, 1997), such
as using the new technology (van Beuningen et al., 2009).
Technology anxiety is an apprehensive feeling towards a new
technology (Meuter et al., 2003), and perceived ease of use
refers to perceived (lack of) complexity (Timmor and Rymon,
2007) and effort (Davis, 1989, 1986) entailed in using the
new technology effectively. As the focus of these constructs is
on user-technology interaction, the relationship between them
should not be affected by context.
Research methodology
Research design and sampling
In order to test the anxiety-based model of public SST
acceptance and the hypothesised moderating effects, this
research draws on the intention to use a self-checkout in
grocery stores, where consumers do their everyday shopping.
This context appears to be particularly appropriate for two
reasons. First, a self-checkout in a retail store is a typical
example of a publicly used SST (Dabholkar and Bagozzi,
2002). Second, this setting captures mental acceptance of a
technology that has not been used before. This is because in
Germany, where this research was conducted, self-checkouts
have not been implemented in grocery stores so far.
A cross-sectional survey based on a standardised paper-
pencil questionnaire with four sections was conducted. The
first section comprised general technology-related questions
(e.g. previous experience with technologies). The second
section presented an image of a self-checkout and briefly
described its function and usage. In the same section,
respondents were asked to recall their usually experienced
grocery-shopping situation and to indicate their level of
perceived crowding and time pressure. This approach was
used to assure that respondents have this situation in mind
when answering the subsequent questions. Sampling such
retrospective experiences is a quite common approach used to
capture perceptions of shopping situations (e.g. Eroglu et al.
2005; Machleit et al. 2000). At the beginning of the third
section, subjects were asked to imagine that the presented
self-checkout is launched in their grocery store and they have
the possibility to try this technology. Then respondents were
asked questions related to the self-checkout (i.e. self-efficacy,
technology anxiety, perceived ease of us, and intention to
use). The questionnaire concluded with a fourth section,
containing socio-demographic data like age, gender, and
education.
Embedding the evaluation of the self-checkout in a survey-
based retrospective experience overcomes some inherent
limitations of scenario-based experiments in which context
variables are manipulated. This is because hypothetical
scenarios require a lot of imagination and thus are quite
artificial (Huang, 2008). Moreover the retrospective approach
was chosen to increase the ecological validity of the study, that
is, its approximation of a real-life situation (Bateson and Hui,
86
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94
1992). In general, consumers think of their real-life
experience when they indicate whether or not to try out an
unknown technology (Meuter et al., 2003). In particular, the
two context variables (perceived crowding and perceived time
pressure) relate to actual experiences in a real-life shopping
situation, which is hard to establish in an experimental
setting.
The study aimed at a representative sample of the general
population because nearly everybody has to do grocery
shopping. For this purpose, data were collected from a quota
sample of the German adult population (i.e. $18 years old),
based on the gender and age distribution available from
consumer statistics (Consumer Analysis, 2009).
Undergraduate students participating in a marketing course
of a German university were asked to administer the
questionnaire to one person of a particular age bracket and
gender. This procedure resulted in a sample of 313
respondents. In the data cleansing process, 39 respondents
were removed, including 12 respondents who had gained prior
experience with self-checkout in other contexts (e.g. at do-it-
yourself markets or abroad). This is because this research
focuses on intention to use a new technology, rather than on
actual usage. Of the remaining 272 respondents 130 (142)
were male (female), and their age ranged from 18 to 89 years,
with a mean of 47.6 years (see Table I).
Measurement variables
All construct measures were derived from existing scales and
adapted to the self-service context in a retail setting (see
Appendix, see Table VII). Some items were dropped following
CFA to ensure the convergent and discriminant validity of the
model constructs. Unless stated otherwise, all constructs were
measured on seven-point Likert-type scales (1 ¼ strongly
disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree). Self-efficacy toward using a
self-checkout was measured by three items derived from
Compeau and Higgins (1995). Anxiety toward using a self-
checkout (three items) was adapted from Venkatesh (2000).
Two perceived ease of use items were derived from Davis’
(1989) original TAM measures. Intention to use a self-
checkout was measured based on three items developed by
Venkatesh and Bala (2008) and Venkatesh (2000).
The moderating variables, perceived crowding (Machleit
et al., 1994) and time pressure (Vermeir and van Kenhove,
2005), each encompassed four items. While the original scale
for perceived crowding includes some items that refer to
limited space due to objects (e.g. “stuffy”) the measure used
in this study only covers social density because it focuses on
the subliminal effect of other individuals present.
Additionally, previous experience with technologies (three
items, based on Meuter et al., 2005), age, and gender were
included as control variables. This means that a model was
Table I Description of the sample
Gender Male Female
Age-group Number Percentage Number Percentage
18-35 38 14.0 35 12.9
36-49 37 13.6 37 13.6
50-65 34 12.5 32 11.8
> 65 21 7.7 38 14.0
Total 130 47.8 142 52.3
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure Journal of Services Marketing
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94

tested that entailed these variables as additional predictors of
intention to use. In this model, only previous experience with
technologies exerted a significant, yet weak direct effect
(b ¼ 0.22; p , 0.001) on intention to use; age and gender
were nonsignificant. Then, the model that included control
variables was compared to a model that did not include
control variables. In these comparisons, neither the
relationships of the core model nor the examined two- and
three-way-interactions changed due to the inclusion of the
control variables. These results suggested that the control
variables did not bias the results. In addition, including
control variables impaired the model fit (x2/df ¼ 4.81).
Hence, for the sake of parsimony, the control variables were
excluded from subsequent hypotheses testing.
Table II shows the descriptive statistics and correlations for
all model variables including previous experience with
technologies as a control variable3. To assess convergent
and discriminant validity of the constructs, a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 16.0 and
the maximum likelihood estimation (see Appendix). The
measurement model achieved an adequate fit (x2
[168] ¼ 255.99, x2/df ¼ 1.52, GFI ¼ 0.92, AGFI ¼ 0.89,
TLI ¼ 0.98, CFI ¼ 0.99, RMSEA ¼ 0.04).
Course of analysis
Data analysis comprised three steps. The first step was to test
the anxiety-based model of technology acceptance displayed in
Figure 1 using structural equation modelling and the
maximum likelihood estimation. The second step was to test
the moderating effects of perceived crowding (H1a,b) and time
pressure (H2a,b) comprising two-way interactions. The third
step included moderation analyses comprising three-way
interactions (H3a,b). Moderating effects were tested using
multi-group analyses and x2 difference tests within a nested
model approach (Iacobucci, 2010; Muthén and Muthén,
2011). For this purpose, median split was conducted for the
two moderators yielding two subgroups one each for perceived
crowding (high: n ¼ 132; low: n ¼ 140) and perceived time
pressure (high: n ¼ 133; low: n ¼ 139). Then, it was tested if
path coefficients for the focal relationships (“technology
anxiety ! intention to use”, “perceived ease of use !
intention to use”) are equal across subgroups. This test was
conducted by constraining the path coefficients across groups
to be equal. A significant increase of the x2 value indicates a
significantly worse model fit, which means that the path
coefficients are significantly different from each other across
subgroups indicating a moderator effect.
For the two-way interactions, two subgroups each were
compared with respect to high vs low perceived crowding
(H1a,b) and high vs low perceived time pressure (H2a,b). For
the three-way interactions (H3a,b), four subgroups were
compared based on perceived crowding/perceived time
pressure: low/low (n ¼ 85), low/high (n ¼ 55), high/low
(n ¼ 54), and high/high (n ¼ 78).
Results
Structural equation modelling confirms the model displayed
in Figure 1 with an excellent overall fit (x2 [39] ¼ 78.78, x2/
df ¼ 2.02, GFI ¼ 0.95, AGFI ¼ 0.92, TLI ¼ 0.99,
CFI ¼ 0.99, RMSEA ¼ 0.06). All path coefficients are
significant at the 0.01 level. Self-efficacy has a positive effect
on perceived ease of use and a negative effect on technology
anxiety. Technology anxiety, in turn, reduces intention to use
both directly, as well as indirectly, through the reduction of
perceived ease of use (see Table III).
Although not specifically hypothesised, the direct effect of
technology anxiety on intention to use (b ¼ 20.53; p , 0.001)
appears to be much greater than the indirect effect, through the
reduction of perceived ease of use (b ¼ 20.08). In line with
this result, a mediation analysis according to Baron and Kenny
(1986) reveals that perceived ease of use does not mediate the
effect of technology anxiety on intention to use. The original
path coefficient for the direct relationship between technology
anxiety and intention to use in a model that excluded perceived
ease of use (b ¼ 20.54; p , 0.001) remains the same when
perceived ease of use is included (b ¼ 20.53; p , 0.001).
Table IV shows the results of hypothesis testing for the
moderating effects of perceived crowding (H1a,b) and time
pressure (H2a,b). Multigroup comparisons and x2 difference
tests reveal that the negative effect of technology anxiety on
intention to use is significantly stronger (Dx2 ¼ 6.30;
p , 0.012) when perceived crowding is high (b ¼ 2 0.76;
p , 0.001) than when perceived crowding is low (b ¼ 2 0.40;
p , 0.001). Hence, H1a is supported. In a similar vein, the
positive effect of perceived ease of use on intention to use is
significantly weaker (Dx2 ¼ 5.80; p , 0.016) when perceived
crowding is high ( b ¼ 2 0.04; p , 0.672) than when
perceived crowding is low (b ¼ 0.32; p , 0.001), with the
effect even becoming insignificant in the high crowding
subgroup. Hence, H1b is also supported.
Contrary to expectations, the negative effect of technology
anxiety on intention to use does not change due to time
pressure. H2a is not supported (Dx2 ¼ 0.20; p , 0.655).

Table II Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for model variables

Descriptives Correlations
Construct M SD SE AN EOU INT CR TP PE
Self-efficacy towards the use of the self-checkout (SE) 4.49 2.01 0.92
Anxiety towards the use of the self-checkout (AN) 3.52 2.09 2 0.65 * * 0.93
Perceived ease of use of the self-checkout (EOU) 4.63 1.75 0.68 * * 20.69 * * 0.92
Intention to use the self-checkout (INT) 3.38 2.22 0.43 * * 20.64 * * 0.54 * * 0.98
Perceived crowding (CR) 4.21 1.40 0.11 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.94
Perceived time pressure (TP) 3.36 1.88 0.22 * * 20.22 * * 0.17 * * 0.16 * * 0.26 * * 0.91
Previous experience with technologies (PE) 4.80 1.65 0.60 * * 20.53 * * 0.57 * * 0.51 * * 0.17 * * 0.33 * * 0.84
Notes: Scales range from 1 (low values) to 7 (high values); the AVEs’ (average variance extracted) square roots are presented in bold characters; * *p , 0.01
(two-tailed test)

87
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure Journal of Services Marketing
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94

Table III Results of path model estimation

Model relationship Path coefficient t-values
Self-efficacy ! technology anxiety 20.66 212.36 * *
Self-efficacy ! perceived ease of use 0.46 7.60 * *
Technology anxiety ! perceived ease of use 20.41 2 6.80 * *
Technology anxiety ! intention to use 20.53 2 7.42 * *
Perceived ease of use ! intention to use 0.19 2.59 *
Notes: *p , 0.01, **
p , 0.001 (two-tailed tests)

Table IV Two-way interaction results

Perceived crowding Perceived time pressure
Model relationship High Low Dx2 ( p-value) * High Low Dx2 ( p-value) *
Technology anxiety ! intention to use H1a 20.76 20.40 6.30 0.012 H2a 20.57 2 0.52 0.20 0.655
Perceived ease of use ! intention to use H1b 20.04 0.32 5.80 0.016 H2b 0.07 0.21 0.50 0.479
Note: *Two-tailed

Similarly, a x2 difference test (Dx2 ¼ 0.50; p , 0.479)
indicates that the positive effect of perceived ease of use on
intention to use is not significantly smaller under high
(b ¼ 0.07; p , 0.608) than under low perceived crowding
(b ¼ 0.21; p , 0.019). Hence, H2b is not supported either.
Table V shows the results of hypothesis testing for the
moderating effects of perceived crowding x time pressure on
the relationship between technology anxiety and intention to
use (H3a). The elements on the diagonal axis show the path
coefficients for the four subgroups, and the off-diagonal
elements show the x2 differences for the respective subgroup
as compared to all other subgroups. The results show that the
mitigating effect of technology anxiety on intention to use is
strongest in the high perceived crowding/high perceived time
pressure condition (b ¼ 20.90). Further, the x2 difference
tests in the last column of Table IV indicate that this
coefficient is significantly higher than in all other conditions
(low/low: b ¼ 2 0.53, Dx2 ¼ 4.50; p , 0.034; low/high:
b ¼ 2 0.39, Dx2 ¼ 3.30; p , 0.069; high/low: b ¼ 2 0.53,
Dx2 ¼ 2.80; p , 0.094). The x2 differences are only
significant at the 0.1 level for the low/high and the high/low
condition. However, this threshold appears acceptable given
the relatively small sample size of n ¼ 55 and n ¼ 54,
respectively. Hence, the coincidence of crowding and time
pressure reinforces the mitigating effect of technology anxiety
on intention to use, which lends support to H3a.
Table VI shows the results of hypothesis testing for
moderating effects of perceived crowding £ time pressure on
the relationship between perceived ease of use and intention to
use (H3b). Again, the elements on the diagonal axis show the
path coefficients for the four subgroups, and the off-diagonal
elements show the x2 differences for the respective subgroup as
compared to all other subgroups. The results show that the
reinforcing effect of perceived ease of use on intention to use is
lowest (and even becomes negative) in the high perceived
crowding/high perceived time pressure condition (b ¼ 20.15).
Further, the x2 difference tests indicated in the last column of
Table IV show that this coefficient is lower than in all other
conditions (low/low: b ¼ 0.28, Dx2 ¼ 5.80; p , 0.016; low/
high: b ¼ 0.06, Dx2 ¼ 0.40; p , 0.527; high/low: b ¼ 0.04,
Dx2 ¼ 0.70; p , 0.403). Yet, the x2 differences are significant
with respect to the low/low condition ( p , 0.016) only. Hence,
H3b is only partially supported.
Conclusions and implications
Theoretical implications
Technology anxiety mitigates the mental acceptance of public
SST usage, that is, the more apprehensive consumers feel
when faced with the possibility of using a new technology for
the first time, the less they intend to use this technology in a
public setting. Moreover, the results provide evidence for an
effect not indicated in TAM3. Technology anxiety has a
strong direct negative effect on intention to use, which occurs
over and above the indirect effect, through the reduction of
perceived ease of use. This means that the mental rejection of
public SST usage is mainly an emotional reaction to a fear-
arising technology, not the result of cognitive reflections on

Table V Three-way interaction results for “technology anxiety ! intention to use”

Path coefficients andDx2 difference testa
Perceived crowding/perceived time pressure Low/low Low/high High/low High/high
Low/low 20.53 p , 0.001 0.30 p , 0.584 0.00 p , 1.00 4.50 p, 0.034
Low/high 20.39 p , 0.099 0.30 p , 0.584 3.30 p, 0.069
High/low 2 0.53 p , 0.003 2.80 p, 0.094
High/high 20.90 p, 0.001
Notes: aThe diagonal elements indicate the path coefficients in the respective subgroup. The off-diagonal elements indicate the x2 differences

88
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler
Table VI Results for three-way interactions “perceived ease of use ! intention to use”
Perceived crowding/perceived time pressure
Low/low 0.28
Low/high
High/low
High/high
Notes: aThe diagonal elements indicate the path coefficients in the respective subgroup. The off-diagonal elements indicate the x2 differences
ease of use as stated in TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008). In
other words, mentally refusing to use an SST in public is an
intuitive intention to avoid an aversive stimulus.
Self-efficacy greatly reduces technology anxiety when
people think of using SSTs in public. Hence, the basic
mechanisms suggested in Bandura’s (1997, 1986, 1977)
social cognitive theory also apply to the public use of SST.
Therefore, fostering self-efficacy is an appropriate means to
counter anxiety-based reluctance to use an SST in public.
Most importantly, contextual restrictions may provoke
perceived crowding and time pressure. People in crowded
situations perceiving time pressure seem to be completely
paralyzed, as indicated by the extremely high path coefficient
for this subgroup in the relationship between technology
anxiety and intention to use (b ¼ 20.90). More so, even if
these people perceive the SST as easy to use, they would tend
not to use the system: The well-established relationship
between perceived ease of use and intention to use even
becomes negative (b ¼ 2 0.15).
The reason for these effects is that perceived crowding
entails stress (Stokols, 1972) because people do not like to be
observed by others, particularly by strangers (Vine, 1981),
when using a new SST. This problem becomes even more
vital when people feel like they need to produce the service
within a limited time span (Hockey, 1997). Hence the public
context bears the danger that context variables interfere to a
degree that people completely refrain from the intention to
use the respective SST.
Managerial implications
This research relates to an early phase of the adoption
process, when consumers are faced with a previously
unknown SST and are invited to use this SST in public for
the first time. Meuter et al. (2003) stress that getting
consumers to try a new SST for the first time is the most
salient obstacle to the diffusion of an innovation. The results
of this study allow for recommendations of how to increase
mental acceptance of public SST usage at such an early stage
of the adoption process, prior to a full-range rollout of the
new technology. Taking those measures may prevent costs
that occur if the technology is rejected after full-range rollout.
In general, the results suggest that marketing managers who
seek to introduce a new SST used in public, such as a self-
checkout, should reduce technology anxiety through two
measures: Reinforcing self-efficacy and designing the public
context of usage in a way that technology anxiety does not
inhibit the intention to use the SST, i.e. avoid perceptions of
crowding and time pressure.
Reinforcing self-efficacy
When consumers show low self-efficacy, adequate training
opportunities should be offered before introducing a new SST
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94
Path coefficients andDx2 difference testa
Low/low Low/high High/low High/high
p ,0.006 0.20 p , 0.655 1.10 p , 0.294 5.80 p, 0.016
0.06 p , 0.803 0.10 p , 0.752 0.40 p, 0.527
0.04 p , 0.829 0.70 p, 0.403
20.16 p, 0.250
across all retail stores, for example in the form of
demonstration models (e.g. prototype self-checkouts) to test
the required procedure in certain stores. Such training can be
based on the four principal sources of self-efficacy suggested
by Bandura (1997): enactive mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, verbal persuasion (or allied types of social
influences), and physiological and affective states.
Mastery experience may be achieved when consumers have
the opportunity to try a fail-safe operation voluntarily, or to
try with considerate step-by-step guidance by a peer
consumer, a technology-interface, or service personnel.
Vicarious experience can be acquired by watching similar
individuals (e.g. in a TV-spot or on a display at the point of
sale), successfully performing the service. By utilizing this so-
called social modelling, the service provider delivers a social
standard that consumers can use as a reference point to judge
their own capabilities. Vicarious experiences should be
combined with verbal persuasion. Having someone next to
the consumer who is saying “you are able to do this” is likely
to further enhance self-efficacy, so that people try with more
effort. Finally, favourable physiological and affective states
can be induced by a pleasant design of environmental
dimensions in the respective stores like odor, temperature
(Bitner, 1992), or music (Hui et al., 1997).
Avoiding perceptions of perceived crowding and time pressure
To avoid perceived crowding, retailers should carefully plan
the rollout of SSTs like a self-checkout in a limited number of
test stores. At the beginning, they should only open the first
demonstration checkouts at off-peak times, when only a few
consumers are shopping in the store. Hence, other people
around may not decrease the consumers’ ability to perform in
the required way. An initial offering at off-peak times may also
reduce perceived time pressure because there will be no lines
at the checkouts that may reinforce consumers’ impressions
that they have limited time to complete the service. Hence,
people may take the time to reflect on the new technology and
to give it a trial.
Limitations and further research
This study refers to mental acceptance of public SST usage,
rather than to actual usage. Though mental acceptance is a
necessary condition for actual use, it may not be a sufficient
condition for the adoption of an innovation. Even an initial
positive evaluation might be discarded if consumers later
receive additional, negative or contradicting information on
the innovation (Bagozzi and Lee, 1999). Further research
should therefore deal with factors that inhibit actual use in
spite of mental acceptance. Further, consumers may also use
the SST once, but not repeatedly. For example, it is possible
that laziness or inertia may inhibit further usage. Hence,
future research should aim to examine why some people still
89
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler
refrain from using an SST in public even though they have
tried earlier.
This research refers to a self-checkout, which is a particular
SST in a retail context. In most retail stores, self-checkout is
– if at all – only offered as an additional way to checkout, next
to the regular cashpoints. A crucial question, however, is what
happens when people are forced into using an SST in public?
Do they switch to another retailer or engage in negative word-
of-mouth (Reinders et al., 2008)? Further research should
also examine, if technology anxiety makes people switch
retailers or perform hostile reactions when retailers force them
into using an SST in public.
Finally, technology anxiety is used here as the only
antecedent to ease of use in a single cue study. However,
TAM3 proposes other “anchor variables”, such as playfulness
or perceptions of external control (Venkatesh and Bala,
2008). Further research should investigate if such variables
are also relevant in public usage and if their effect may also be
subject to context variables typical for “on-site” SST usage.
Notes
1 In the final conceptualization of TAM, the attitude
construct is dropped for the sake of parsimony (Venkatesh
et al., 2003).
2 Pons et al. (2006) show that crowds may also be
appreciated when using hedonic services like amusement
parks or concerts, particularly among consumers in the
Middle East. However, the present research draws on
non-hedonic services and on the negative connotation of
crowding.
3 Age and gender are not included because they are single-
item measures.
References
Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V. and Stair, R.M. (2000),
“Research report: the evolving relationship between general
and specific computer self-efficacy – an empirical
assessment”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 418-430.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”,
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-212.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitude and
Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Alreck, P.L., DiBartolo, G.R., Diriker, M.F. and Settle, R.B.
(2009), “Time pressure, time saving and online shopping:
exploring a contradiction”, Journal of Applied Business
Research, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 1-4.
Argo, J.J., Dahl, D.W. and Manchanda, R.V. (2005), “A non-
interactive social presence in a retail setting: an investigation
of its impact on consumers’ emotions, cognitive
performance, and self-presentation behaviors”, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 309-310.
Aylott, R. and Mitchell, V.-W. (1998), “An exploratory study
of grocery shopping stressors”, International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 362-373.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Lee, K.-H. (1999), “Consumer resistance
to, and acceptance of, innovations”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 26, pp. 218-225.
90
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94
Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M. and Nyer, P.U. (1999), “The
role of emotions in marketing”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 184-206.
Baker, J. and Cameron, M. (1996), “The effects of the service
environment on affect and consumer perception of waiting
time: an integrative review and research propositions”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 338-349.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory
of behavioral change”, Psychological Review, Vol. 84 No. 2,
pp. 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action – a
Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Contro,
Freeman & Co., New York, NY.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bateson, J.E.G. (2000), “Perceived control and the service
experience”, in Swartz, T.A. and Iacobucci, D. (Eds),
Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, Sage
Publications, London and New Delhi, pp. 127-144.
Bateson, J.E.G. and Hui, M.K. (1992), “The ecological
validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating
the service setting”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19,
pp. 271-281.
Baum, A. and Valins, S. (1979), “Architectural mediation of
residential density and control: Crowding and the
regulation of social contact”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press,
New York, NY, Vol. 12, pp. 131-175.
Ben-Zur, H. and Breznitz, S.J. (1981), “The effect of time
pressure on risky choice behavior”, Acta Psychologica,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 89-104.
Berry, L.L., Seiders, K. and Grewal, D. (2002), “Understanding
service convenience”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, pp. 1-17.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: The impact of physical
surroundings on customers and employees”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 57-71.
Cambre, M.A. and Cook, D.L. (1985), “Computer anxiety:
definition, measurement, and correlates”, Journal of
Educational Computing Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 37-54.
Collier, J.E. and Sherrell, D.L. (2010), “Examining the
influence of control and convenience in a self-service
setting”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38
No. 4, pp. 490-509.
Compeau, D. and Higgins, C.A. (1995), “Computer self-
efficacy: development of a measure and initial test”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 189-211.
Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A. and Huff, S. (1999), “Social
cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing
technology: a longitudinal study”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 145-158.
Consumer Analysis (2009), Verbraucheranalyse, Axel Springer
Media Group and Bauer Media Group.
Curran, J.M. and Meuter, M.L. (2005), “Self-service
technology adoption comparing three technologies”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 103-113.
Czaja, S.J., Charness, N., Fisk, A.D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S.N.,
Rogers, W.A. and Sharit, J. (2006), “Factors predicting the
use of technology: findings from the center for research and
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler
education on aging and technology enhancement
(CREATE)”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 333-352.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1994), “Technology-based service delivery:
a classification scheme for developing marketing strategies”,
Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 3,
pp. 241-271.
Dabholkar, P.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2002), “An attitudinal
model of technology-based self-service: moderating effects
of consumer traits and situational factors”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 184-201.
Dabholkar, P.A., Bobbitt, L.M. and Lee, E. (2003),
“Understanding consumer motivation and behavior
related to self-scanning in retailing”, International Journal
of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-95.
Davis, F.D. (1986), A Technology Acceptance Model for
Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems:
Theory and Results, Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Dholakia, U.M. (2000), “Temptation and resistance: an
integrated model of consumption impulse formation and
enactment”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 11,
pp. 955-982.
Earles, J.L., Kersten, A.W., Mas, B.B. and Miccio, D.M.
(2004), “Aging and memory for self-performed tasks: effects
of task difficulty and time pressure”, Journal of Gerontology:
Psychological Sciences, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 285-293.
Eroglu, S.A. and Harrell, G.D. (1986), “Retail crowding:
theoretical and strategic implications”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 346-363.
Eroglu, S.A. and Machleit, K.A. (1990), “An empirical study
of retail crowding: antecedents and consequences”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 201-221.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K. and Barr, T.F. (2005), “Perceived
retail crowding and shopping satisfaction”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 1146-1153.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention
and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Freedman, J.L., Klevansky, S. and Ehrlich, P.R. (1971), “The
effect of crowding on human task performance”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Frijda, N.H., Kuipers, P. and ter Schure, E. (1989),
“Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional
action readiness”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 212-228.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust
and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Grossbart, S., Hampton, R. and Lapidus, R.S. (1990),
“Environmental dispositions and customer response to
store atmospherics”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21,
pp. 225-241.
Hockey, G.R. (1997), “Compensatory control in the
regulation of human performance under stress and high
workload: a cognitive-energetical framework”, Biological
Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 73-93.
Huang, W.-H. (2008), “The impact of other-customer failure
on service satisfaction”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 521-536.
91
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94
Hui, M.K. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1990), “Testing a theory of
crowding in the service environment”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 866-872.
Hui, M.K. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1991), “Perceived control
and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the
service experience”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18,
pp. 174-184.
Hui, M.K., Dube, L. and Chebat, J. (1997), “The impact of
music on consumers’ reactions to waiting for services”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 87-104.
Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Structural equations modeling: fit
indices, sample size, and advanced topics”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 90-98.
Igbaria, M. and Iivari, J. (1995), “The effects of self-efficacy
on computer usage”, Omega: International Journal of
Management Science, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 587-605.
Kulviwat, S., Guo, C. and Engchanil, N. (2004), “Determinants
of online information search: a critical review and
assessment”, Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 245-253.
Lam, J.C.Y. and Lee, M.K.O. (2006), “Digital inclusiveness –
longitudinal study of internet adoption by older adults”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 177-206.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R. and Sambamurthy, V. (2003),
“Sources of influence on beliefs about information
technology use: an empirical study of knowledge
workers”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 657-678.
Lieberman, H., Tharion, W., Shukitt-Hale, B., Speckman, K.
and Tulley, R. (2002), “Effects of caffeine, sleep loss, and
stress on cognitive performance and mood during US Navy
SEAL training”, Psychopharmacology, Vol. 164 No. 3,
pp. 250-261.
McCain, G., Cox, V.C., Paulus, P.B., Luke, A. and Abadzi,
H. (1985), “Some effects of reduction of extra-classroom
crowding in a school environment”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 503-515.
Machleit, K.A., Eroglu, S.A. and Mantel, S. (2000),
“Perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: what
modifies this relationship?”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Machleit, K.A., Kellaris, J.J. and Eroglu, S.A. (1994),
“Human versus spatial dimensions of crowding
perceptions in retail environments: a note on their
measurement and effect on shopper satisfaction”,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 183-194.
Mackintosh, E., West, S. and Saegert, S. (1975), “Two
studies of crowding in urban public spaces”, Environment
and Behavior, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 159-184.
Mattila, A.S. and Wirtz, J. (2008), “The role of store
environmental stimulation and social factors on impulse
purchasing”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 562-567.
Maule, A.J., Hockey, G.R. and Bdzola, L. (2000), “Effects of
time-pressure on decision-making under uncertainty:
changes in affective state and information processing
strategy”, Acta Psychologica, Vol. 104, pp. 283-301.
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown, S.W.
(2005), “Choosing among alternative service delivery
modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service
technologies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, pp. 61-83.
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Roundtree, R.I.
(2003), “The influence of technology anxiety on consumer
use and experience with self-service technologies”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 56, pp. 899-906.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I. and Bitner,
M.J. (2000), “Self-service technologies: understanding
customer satisfaction with technology-based service
encounters”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 50-64.
Moors, A. (2009), “Theories of emotion causation: a review”,
Cognition & Emotion, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 625-662.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (2011), “Mplus – statistical
analysis with latent variables – User’s Guide (Vers. 6)”,
available at: www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/
Mplus%20Users%20-Guide%20v6.pdf (accessed: October
21, 2011).
Nabih, M.I., Bloem, S.G. and Poiesz, T.B.C. (1997),
“Conceptual issues in the study of innovation adoption
behavior”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24,
pp. 190-196.
Oei, N.Y.L., Everaerd, W.T.A.M., Elzinga, B.M., van Well, S.
and Bermond, B. (2006), “Psychosocial stress impairs
working memory at high loads: an association with cortisol
levels and memory retrieval”, Stress, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 133-141.
Ordónez, L. and Benson, L. (1997), “III Decisions under
time pressure: how time constraint affects risky decision
making”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 121-140.
Oyedele, A. and Simpson, P.M. (2007), “An empirical
investigation of consumer control factors on intention to
use selected self-service-technologies”, International Journal
of Service Industry Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 287-306.
Park, C.W., Iyer, E.S. and Smith, D.C. (1989), “The effects of
situational factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior: the
role of store environment and time available for shopping”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 422-433.
Phang, C.W., Sutanto, J., Kankanhalli, A., Li, Y., Tan, B.C.Y.
and Teo, H. (2006), “Senior citizens’ acceptance of
information systems: a study in the context of e-government
services”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 555-569.
Pons, F., Laroche, M. and Mourali, M. (2006), “Consumer
reactions to crowded retail settings: cross-cultural
differences between North America and the Middle East”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 555-572.
Punj, G.N. and Stewart, D.W. (1983), “An interaction
framework of consumer decision making”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-196.
Rapoport, A. (1975), “Toward a redefinition of density”,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 133-158.
Raub, A.C. (1981), “Correlates of computer anxiety in
college students”, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA, doctoral dissertation.
Reinders, M.J., Dabholkar, P.A. and Frambach, R.T. (2008),
“Consequences of forcing consumers to use technology-
based self-service”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 107-123.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free
Press, New York, NY, London, Toronto and Sydney.
Rohner, J. (2004), “Memory-based attentional biases: anxiety
is linked to threat avoidance”, Cognition & Emotion, Vol. 18
No. 8, pp. 1027-1054.
Schwarz, N. (1990), “Feelings as information. Informational
and motivational functions of affective states”, in Higgins,
92
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94
E.M. and Sorrentino, R.M. (Eds), Handbook of Motivation
and Cognition, Vol. 2, pp. 527-561.
Schwarz, N. and Clore, G.L. (2003), “Mood as information:
20 years later”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 14 Nos 3-4,
pp. 296-303.
Stockdale, J.E. (1978), “Crowding: Determinants and effects”,
Advances in Experimental Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 197-247.
Stokols, D. (1972), “A social-psychological model of human
crowding phenomena”, Journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 72-83.
Strombeck, S.D. and Wakefield, K.L. (2008), “Situational
influences on service quality evaluations”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 22 Nos 4/5, pp. 409-419.
Svenson, O. and Maule, A.J. (1993), Time Pressure and Stress
in Human Judgment and Decision Making, Plenum Press,
New York, NY and London.
Timmor, Y. and Rymon, T. (2007), “To do or not to do: the
dilemma of technology-based service improvement”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 99-111.
van Beuningen, J., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. and Streukens,
S. (2009), “Customer self-efficacy in technology-based self-
service”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 407-428.
Vedhara, K., Hyde, J., Gilchrist, I.D., Tytherleigh, M. and
Plummer, S. (2000), “Acute stress, memory, attention and
cortisol”, Psychoneuroendocrinology, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 535-549.
Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Determinants of perceived ease of use:
integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into
the technology acceptance model”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 342-365.
Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008), “Technology acceptance
model 3 and a research agenda on interventions”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 273-315.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (1996), “A model of the
antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and
test”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 451-481.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension
of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field
studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D.
(2003), “User acceptance of information technology.
Toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 425-478.
Vermeir, I. and van Kenhove, P. (2005), “The influence of need
for closure and perceived time pressure on search effort for
price and promotional information in a grocery shopping
context”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 71-95.
Vine, I. (1981), “Crowding and stress: 1. Review of variables
and theories”, Current Psychological Reviews, Vol. 1,
pp. 305-324.
Weijters, B., Rangarajan, D., Falk, T. and Schillewaert, N.
(2007), “Determinants and outcomes of customers’ use of
self-service technology in a retail setting”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Whiting, A. (2009), “Push, scream, or leave: how do
consumers cope with crowded retail stores?”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 487-495.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2003), Services Marketing:
Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm, 3rd ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Zhu, Z., Nakata, C., Sivakumar, K. and Grewal, D. (2007),
“Self-service technology effectiveness: the role of design
features and individual traits”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 35, pp. 492-506.
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure Journal of Services Marketing
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94

Appendix

Table AI CFA results

Variable/items Loadings in CFA Cronbach’s a
a
Self-efficacy towards the use of a self-checkout (a 5 0.94, FR 5 0.94) 0.94
I would be able to use the self-checkout . . .
. . . if there is no one around to tell me what to do 0.93
. . . if I had just the built-in help facility for assistance 0.88
. . . if I had never used a checkout like this before 0.94
Anxiety towards the use of a self-checkout (a 5 0.95, FR 5 0.95) 0.95
Using the self-checkout would make me feel uncomfortable 0.94
I get a sinking feeling when I think of using the self-checkout 0.89
Using the self-checkout would make me feel uneasy 0.95
Perceived ease of use of the self-checkout (a 5 0.91, FR 5 0.92) 0.91
It would be easy to use the self-checkout 0.95
This checkout would be easy to use 0.88
Intention to use the self-checkout (a 5 0.99, FR 5 0.99) 0.99
Assuming I had access to a self-checkout, I intend to use it 0.98
Given that I had access to a self-checkout, I predict that I would use it 0.99
I plan to use the self-checkout 0.97
Perceived crowding (a 5 0.95, FR 5 0.96) 0.95
When I do my grocery shopping . . .
This supermarket is very busy 0.86
There is much traffic in this store during my shopping trip 0.98
There are a lot of shoppers in the store 0.98
Perceived time pressure (a 5 0.95, FR 5 0.95) 0.95
I find myself pressed for time when I do my grocery shopping 0.95
I am in a hurry when I do my grocery shopping 0.96
I have only a limited amount of time available to do my grocery shopping 0.83
I do not have enough time to complete my weekly grocery shopping unhurried 0.88
Previous experience with technologies (a 5 0.84, FR 5 0.88) 0.84
I commonly use lots of automated systems when dealing with other businesses 0.61b
I do have much experience with the internet 0.89
I use a lot of technologically based products and services 0.93
Notes: aFR: factor reliability. bThis factor loading is rather low. However, the item is retained because it describes special knowledge using automated systems
and is thus necessary to ensure content validity of previous experience with technologies

About the authors
Katja Gelbrich is Full Professor of International Management
at Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, in Ingolstadt/
Germany. She has a research focus on cross-cultural
marketing and management, service failure and recovery,
and consumer emotions.
Britta Sattler is a PhD student at the chair of Marketing at
the Ilmenau University of Technology, in Ilmenau/Germany.
Her research interests include technology acceptance, self-
service technologies and consumer emotions. Britta Sattler is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
britta.sattler@tu-ilmenau.de
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
You run a large grocery outlet and have installed, at some
considerable expense, self-checkouts by which you expect to
save money on employee wages and which you expect your
customers to warmly welcome. So what could possibly go
wrong? What’s the worst thing that could happen? The answer
might be a total rejection by a large number of customers.
Why? Well, because they are anxious and apprehensive, or
even just plain scared, of using the technology.
Those of us who are less inclined to experiment with the
wonders of new technology might be ok in the privacy of our
own home and, with plenty of time to experiment, to take the
plunge with the internet and use self-service technology –
internet banking, booking a theater ticket online, buying a
book or a DVD, for instance. But that’s a very different
environment indeed from standing in a busy supermarket
where people are watching you and, even worse, waiting for
you to carry out your daunting task. People do not like to be
watched – especially by strangers – when using a new self-

93
 Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure
Katja Gelbrich and Britta Sattler
service installation and this problem becomes more acute
when people feel that they need to complete the task within a
limited time span.
Technology anxiety is a feeling of apprehension when faced
with the possibility of using such a self-service gizmo,
especially for the first time. In “Anxiety, crowding, and time
pressure in public self-service technology acceptance” Britta
Sattler and Katja Gelbrich say there is a lack of knowledge on
the effect of such technology anxiety when using self-service
technology (SST) in public. They argue that initial rejection
occurs because public SST usage entails two situational
variables – perceived crowding and perceived time pressure –
that reinforce the effect of technology anxiety.
Perceived crowding is a subjective unpleasant feeling that
occurs when an environment is judged to be dysfunctionally
dense. It may arise when publicly using an SST because
consumers use the service “on-site” (e.g. in a retail store).
Prior research in traditional shopping situations shows that
consumers who are sensitive to crowded situations tend to
buy impulsively, to purchase less or leave the shop and to
show a decrease in shopping satisfaction. It is claimed that
consumers in crowded retail settings frequently use coping
strategies like distancing, avoidance or escape.
Perceived time pressure may become relevant for public
SST usage because creating a service “on-site” usually means
that consumers perform the service when it is their turn
(e.g. at a self-checkout). Individuals pressed for time tend to
be stressed which may reinforce the negative impact of
technology anxiety. Marketing managers who seek to
introduce a new SST used in public, such as a self-
checkout, should reduce technology anxiety through two
measures: Reinforcing self-efficacy and designing the public
context of usage in a way that technology anxiety does not
inhibit the intention to use the SST, i.e. avoid perceptions of
crowding and time pressure.
Reinforcing self-efficacy. When consumers show low self-
efficacy, adequate training opportunities should be offered
before introducing a new SST across all retail stores, for
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
94
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 82 –94
example in the form of demonstration models (e.g. prototype
self-checkouts) to test the required procedure in certain
stores. Such training can be based on the four principal
sources of self-efficacy – enactive mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion (or allied types of
social influences), and physiological and affective states.
Mastery experience may be achieved when consumers have
the opportunity to try a fail-safe operation voluntarily or to try
with considerate step-by-step guidance by a peer consumer, a
technology-interface, or service personnel. Vicarious
experience can be acquired by watching similar individuals
(e.g. on a display at the point of sale), successfully performing
the service. By doing so, the service provider delivers a social
standard that consumers can use as a reference point to judge
their own capabilities. Vicarious experiences should be
combined with verbal persuasion. Having someone next to
the consumer who is saying “You are able to do this” is likely
to further enhance self-efficacy, so that people try harder.
Finally, favourable physiological and affective states can be
induced by a pleasant design of environmental dimensions in
the respective stores like odor, temperature or music.
Avoiding perceptions of perceived crowding and time pressure. To
avoid perceived crowding, retailers should carefully plan the
rollout of SSTs like a self-checkout in a limited number of test
stores. At the beginning, they should only open the first
demonstration checkouts at off-peak times, when only a few
consumers are shopping. This way other people may not
decrease the consumers’ ability to perform in the required
way. An initial offering at off-peak times may also reduce
perceived time pressure because there will be no lines at the
checkouts that may reinforce consumers’ impressions that
they have limited time to complete the service. Hence, people
may take the time to reflect on the new technology and to give
it a trial.
(A précis of the article “Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure in
public self-service technology acceptance”. Supplied by Marketing
Consultants for Emerald.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.