See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276913129

Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks

in Social Commerce Era

Article in Journal of Business Ethics · March 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2614-4

CITATIONS READS

2 66

2 authors, including:

Nick Hajli
Newcastle University
29 PUBLICATIONS 214 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Nick Hajli
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 02 August 2016
J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2614-4
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks in Social
Commerce Era
Mauricio S. Featherman1 • Nick Hajli2
Received: 30 August 2014 / Accepted: 11 March 2015
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Social commerce as a subset of e-commerce
has been emerged in part due to the popularity of social
networking sites. Social commerce brings new challenges
to marketing activities. And social commerce transactions
like e-commerce transactions can be dangerous and cause
harmful losses to personal finances, time, and information
privacy. This article examines ethical issues and consumer
assessments of the risks of using an e-service and how risk
affects consumer evaluations and usage of Internet-based
services and self-service technologies. Results from two
surveys totaling 1024 consumers indicated that as usage
risk concerns increased, the perceived usefulness (PU) of
an e-service and intention to use it decreased. Additionally
as usage risk concerns increased the effect of subjective
norm on PU and intention to use an e-service strengthened,
and the effect of perceived ease of use on PU and intention
to use an e-service weakened. These findings advance
theory and contribute to the foundation for future research
aimed at improving our understanding of how consumers
evaluate new e-services, new commerce systems and set-
tings, and self-service technologies in the social commerce
era.
& Nick Hajli
Nick.hajli@newcastle.ac.uk
Mauricio S. Featherman
mauricio@cbe.wsu.edu
1
College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman,
USA
2
Business School, Newcastle University,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Keywords Social commerce era
Risk assessments

Electronic commerce
Self-service technologies
E-
services
Introduction
Individuals are connected more than ever via the Internet,
but the Internet-only connections remain virtual. Unlike
face-to-face retail transactions, the physical separation of
sellers and buyers in impersonal Internet electronic mar-
ketplaces cause uncertainties (Marshall et al. 2012).
Transaction-related uncertainties remain a central issue in
online commerce environments, especially when e-vendors
are unfamiliar to the consumer. E-commerce has developed
but consumers still have concerns regarding ethical prac-
tices of e-vendors (Roman 2007). Meanwhile consumers
are being bombarded with news reports of security
breaches, online fraud, phishing/pharming scams, and
identity theft, and receive seemingly constant counsel re-
garding how to limit exposure to (or recover from) these
dangers. The increased disclosure and reporting of these
dangerous aspects of e-commerce are causing more con-
sumers to limit online transactions particularly in current
social commerce era where many e-commerce transactions
originate from social networking sites (Pai and Huang
2011).
Social commerce is a new stream in e-commerce which
has emerged due to the popularity of social networking
sites (Hajli 2015). In the current social commerce era,
consumers are increasingly using social media yet the
perceived risk of potential dangers and personal losses
remains high (Hajli and Lin 2014). For many consumers,
the decision to make online purchases of products, ser-
vices, and e-service subscriptions includes an assessment
123

of potential dangers and personal losses (Park et al. 2009).
This is more challenging in social commerce era which
individuals are influenced by friend’s opinions, pop culture,
and entertainment aspects related to shopping. As such,
new challenges such as developing trust in social net-
working sites (Shin 2013) as well as credibility of e-vendor
information (Hajli et al. 2014) along with the ever present
risk of personal losses have received the attention of
e-commerce scholars.
Social commerce is a subset of e-commerce (Zhou et al.
2013) and has emerged by the popularity of social net-
working sites (Hajli 2014; Stephen and Toubia 2010). The
main contribution of social commerce is to enable con-
sumers to interact and support each other throughout the
purchasing cycle by sharing experience and information
about a product or service, such as information about past
purchase experiences. An example of online forums and
communities can be a Facebook page that a company de-
velops and invites consumers to come and share their in-
formation and experience about a product or service. It also
may create challenges for the firms. One survey of 5000
consumers finds that many of the consumers are being
more cautious about entering confidential data online, are
logging into online banking accounts less frequently, are
refraining from paying bills online, and are even discon-
tinuing online banking altogether. Similarly many con-
sumers do not want to use their personal details on social
networking sites. As vendors deploy e-services and en-
courage consumers to use lower-cost e-service delivery
channels, a key question remains. How do consumer
assessments of the risks of using an e-service, and resultant
personal losses affect their e-service evaluations and usage
decisions? If consumers believe that e-service offerings
carry the potential for personal losses, then less than op-
timal use of e-services will occur. This research investi-
gates how consumers assess e-commerce risks and more
specifically how e-services are evaluated in light of po-
tential dangers and personal losses (e.g., to finances and
time).
That consumers believe e-commerce product purchases
are risky has been previously demonstrated (Park et al.
2001; Gefen 2002; Jarvenpaa et al. 1999; Teo and Yeong
2003), as has the importance of generating consumer trust
in e-vendors which may act to reduce consumer percep-
tions of risk affecting product-based e-commerce (Van der
Heijden et al. 2003). An assumption being perpetuated in
this research stream is that factors which affect usage de-
cisions exert their effect linearly, and similarly across all
consumer segments. This article addresses this gap in the
research and answers previous calls for further investiga-
tion of perceived risk (Gefen et al. 2003), and the analysis
of nonlinear relationships in evaluation-intentions models
(Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Davis et al. 1989; Fishbein and
123
M. S. Featherman, N. Hajli
Ajzen 1975) and a call (Venkatesh and Davis 2000) to
investigate contingency factors that affect consumer
evaluations of information systems. Improving our under-
standing of the effects of risk in e-commerce and social
commerce deserves further empirical investigation for
many reasons, including that the number of potentially
risky e-service’s and self-service technologies thrust on
consumers is rapidly increasing.
This article hopes to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of how consumers evaluate risky self-ser-
vice technologies and e-services in the social commerce
era, and yield research insights and researcher recom-
mendations that can guide the development, marketing, and
management of e-services and e-commerce Web sites in
ways that reduce consumer risk concerns and encourage
e-commerce transaction activity. We now present a brief
review of the constructs examined in this research. We then
present a research model which is followed by two em-
pirical studies. We conclude with an interpretation of our
findings, as well as their theoretical and practical
implications.
Technology Acceptance Constructs: Theoretical
Background
Theories of social influence, technology acceptance, and
consumer decision making provide an array of constructs
potentially useful for understanding how individuals eval-
uate an IS for adoption. Our research focuses on the direct
and moderating effects of risk concerns within a network of
well-established constructs known to influence technology
usage decisions—subjective norm (SN), perceived ease of
use (PEOU), and perceived usefulness (PU).
Perceived Risk
Consumer purchasing activities often include a subjective
assessment of the hazards and possible losses resultant
from making a poor purchase, for example, to personal
finances, time, and information privacy (Featherman et al.
2010). Purchases often involve risk because consumers
cannot anticipate with certainty the severity of the conse-
quences of using a product or service (and thus experience
uncertainty; Cox and Rich 1964). Consumer uncertainty
about the severity of potential losses and the likelihood of a
poor purchase resulting in these personal losses, together,
have been labeled perceived risk or overall perceived risk
(Dowling and Staelin 1994; Mitchell 1999; Stone and
Grønhaug 1993). Consumer evaluations of the risks in a
purchasing situation are notoriously subjective often
widely varying by consumer segment and purchasing
context.
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks...

Prominent definitions of perceived risk include (i) the
combination of consumer estimates of the probability that a
loss may occur as a result of the purchase, and the seriousness
or importance of the loss (Cox 1967; Peter and Ryan 1976),
and more recently (ii) the subjective expectation of losses
from a purchase (Stone and Grønhaug 1993). Prior research
identifies how and when consumer risk beliefs become
salient (Cox and Rich 1964), their consequents (Dowling and
Staelin 1994; Mitchell 1994; Taylor 1974), identifies dif-
ferent types of perceived risk (Cunningham 1967; Roselius
1971), and identifies some common risk-reduction strategies
(Cox and Rich 1964; Roselius 1971).
Consistent with the theory of reasoned action (Fish-
bein and Ajzen 1975), we theorize that when consumers
evaluate a specific e-service offering, they develop a set
of beliefs about the e-service and using the e-service.
The set of beliefs for some consumers may include risk
beliefs focused on e-service performance problems and
resultant personal losses. These risk beliefs form the
basis for consumers’ assessment of an e-service’s usage
risk which influences attitudes and intentions toward
using the e-service. Focusing on consumer’s overall
summary assessment of an e-service’s usage risks, in our
own research, we label this evaluation consumer’s
assessed usage risk.
Perceived risk is theorized as being multi-dimensional
(Grewal et al. 1994; Jacoby and Kaplan 1972; Mitchell and
Greatorex 1993; Mitra et al. 1999; Peter and Tarpey Sr
1975; Shimp and Bearden 1982). Further an overall risk
assessment is theorized (Dowling and Staelin 1994; Stone
and Grønhaug 1993). Regarding the risk dimensions
(Cunningham 1967) was the first to envision two major
categories of perceived risk: performance and psychoso-
cial. Roselius (1971) further defined six dimensions: per-
formance, financial, (physical) safety, opportunity/time
(the performance-based dimensions) and created separate
psychological and social risk dimensions.
For the e-commerce context, Featherman and Pavlou
(2003) recommend replacing the unlikely safety risk
(measuring threats to consumer health) with privacy risk (a
measure designed to capture consumer beliefs about the
likelihood of threats to the privacy and the confidentiality
of personal information). Prior researchers have identified
the importance of privacy in Internet transactions (Cranor
et al. 2006) and place high importance on a similar con-
struct described as Internet users’ information privacy
concerns (IUIPCs; Malhotra et al. 2004). IUIPC examines
concerns regarding the collection, control, and usage of
personal information. Based on prior theory, our definition
of each facet of assessed usage risk is presented in Table 1.
While an overall perceived risk construct has been hy-
pothesized prior empirical research typically fails to model a
higher-order construct and rather individually reports the
unique effects of each theorized facet of perceived risk. Our
research theorizes the existence of a second order overall usage
risk construct whose dimensions are closely related and co-
vary. For example, the investment guidance of a financial
consultancy service may not perform as expected (perfor-
mance risk) causing personal financial losses, time lost un-
derstanding, and reevaluating the service provider. Further,
resultant frustrations and ego loss (psychological risk) may
occur with a corresponding loss of perceived social status, if
the consumer feels foolish for making a poor purchase. Finally,
in the context of many financial and health-related e-services,
the threat of losses to confidential personal information is also
very real as the reports of stolen or compromised personally
identifying consumer information are common.
In addition to inhibiting consumer services purchases,
perceived risk is found to motivate information-search
activities from personal sources such as relatives, friends,

Table 1 Dimensions of assessed usage risk

Dimension of Definition for e-services
perceived risk

(1) Performance risk Consumer assessment of potential performance problems, malfunctioning, transaction processing errors, reliability
and/or security problems, and therefore not performing as expected
(2) Financial risk Consumer assessment of potential financial losses due to purchasing a subscription to a poorly performing e-service or
potential Internet-based fraud
(3) Privacy risk Consumer assessment of potential losses to the privacy and confidentiality of their personally identifying information
(such as name, address, and purchasing history) and that e-service usage exposes them to potential identity theft
(4) Time risk Consumer assessment of potential losses to convenience, time and effort caused by wasting time researching,
purchasing, setting up, switching to and learning how to use the e-service
(5) Psychological risk Consumer assessment of potential losses to their self-esteem, peace of mind or self-perception (ego) due to worrying,
feeling frustrated, foolish, or stressful as a result of using an e-service
(6) Social risk Consumer assessment of potential losses to their perceived status in their social group as a result of using an e-service.
The assessment of the probability that consumers believe that they will look foolish to important others

123

and perceived domain experts or from impersonal sources
such as Consumer Reports (Mitchell 1999; Mitra et al.
1999). Consumers that fail to find information that reduces
their risk concerns typically avoid or delay the purchase.
Due to their many experience and credence attributes
(Darby and Karni 1973), these avoidance behaviors may be
common for e-services. E-services have experience at-
tributes which must be experienced to be evaluated (e.g.,
its ease of use), and credence attributes which are hard to
evaluate even after usage (e.g., assurances of information
privacy and transaction security). Consumers have been
found to rely more heavily on third-party judgments (both
personal and impersonal) about quality when services have
experience and credence attributes (Mitra et al. 1999).
To facilitate further research into consumer assessments of
usage risks and consumer evaluations of risky information
systems, a parsimonious, yet multi-dimensional scale of usage
risk is developed and its effects measured. Our research in-
vestigates to what extent consumer assessments of an e-ser-
vice’s usage risk influence consumer usage of the e-service
exploring the different mechanisms for this influence.
Subjective Norm (SN)
Since the 1930s, social–psychological studies of social in-
fluence have proceeded on the understanding that people’s
thoughts, feelings, and actions are affected by the actual,
imagined, or implied presence of others. In particular, re-
search indicates that the informational and normative social
influences of reference groups are an important factor that
persuasively influences consumer behavior (Bearden and
Rose 1990; Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975).
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) theorize that SN captures all
forms of social influence such as information and norma-
tive social influence (Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975;
Kelman 1961), combining them into an overall ‘‘normative
expectation.’’ SN is theorized to capture perceived social
influence and pressure that is exerted directly by other in-
dividuals (e.g., in conversations) or attributed to a gener-
alized social agent (e.g., via inferences; Ajzen and Fishbein
1980). Within IS research, SN captures the ‘‘social forces’’
experienced directly from or attributed to co-workers or
managers that impinge ‘‘on an individual facing the op-
portunity to adopt or reject a new system’’ (Venkatesh et al.
2003). In this research, we investigate whether the effects
of SN are affected for those consumers that assess an
e-service as being risky to use. It has been shown in mar-
keting ethics research too (Cronan and Al-Rafee 2008).
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
PEOU is defined as the ‘‘the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular system would be free of
123
M. S. Featherman, N. Hajli
effort’’ (Davis et al. 1989). The salience and predictive
validity of PEOU, also termed effort expectancy, is well
documented in organizational adoption settings (Venkatesh
and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003), mobile systems
(Chung et al. 2014), intention to use ICTs (Chung et al.
2014), adoption of software measures (Wallace and Sheetz
2014), and for Internet banking applications (Chau and Lai
2003). Easier-to-use information systems can help em-
ployees perform their jobs and attain their goals. In this
research, we investigate whether an e-service’s PEOU re-
mains a salient predictor for those consumers that assess
the e-services as being risky to use.
Perceived Usefulness (PU)
Within IS research, an important driver of an employee’s
intention to use an IS is an assessment that it will be useful
to the employee. Employees generally welcome new in-
formation systems they believe are helpful and useful to
complete job tasks and attain work goals (Venkatesh et al.
2003). PU is defined as ‘‘the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular system would enhance his
or her job performance’’ (Davis 1989). PU has widely used
in risk studies (Lee et al. 2014), e-services research, busi-
ness ethics (Svensson et al. 2010), and world business (Lee
et al. 2013). We investigate to what extent an e-service’s
PU is affected by consumer assessments of risk.
Research Model and Hypothesis Development
In our research, we examine the interplay of consumer
perceptions of social influence, ease of use, and an
assessment of and IS’s usefulness and usage risk. We in-
vestigate how these constructs interact to influence con-
sumer usage decisions for a potentially risky e-service. We
examine consumer assessments of an e-service’s usage
risk; its direct effect on e-service evaluations and usage
decisions, and whether it makes contingent other traditional
technology–acceptance relationships (see Fig. 1 below).
Main Effects of Assessed Risk on Perceived
Usefulness and Intention to Use
We claim that consumer assessments of risk influence
e-service evaluations and purchases when personal losses
resultant from usage create feelings of indecision conflict
(Bettman 1973), and psychological discomfort and/or anxi-
ety (Dowling and Staelin 1994; Taylor 1974). Prior services
research finds that consumers that are unable to judge a
service’s likely performance, and are found to rate its pur-
chase as being more risky (Murray 1991). In the e-commerce
context, consumer risk assessments are also affected by
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks...
Fig. 1 Research model
consumer apprehension regarding e-commerce security and
privacy (Hoffman et al. 1999). Higher usage risk levels
should act to worsen consumer evaluations of an e-service’s
usefulness and also inhibit e-service usage. This has been
shown in other e-commerce research (Liao et al. 2010).
Research shows perceived risk also influence intention to
buy (Ha and Stoel 2009), intention to use (Yoon 2011), and
behavioral intention (Cheng and Chu 2013; Park and
Blenkinsopp 2009). Consistent with past research on IS ac-
ceptance, which focuses on the effect of perceived risk on
product purchases (Jarvenpaa et al. 1999; Pavlou 2003; Teo
and Yeong 2003), we hypothesize the following (see Fig. 1):
H1 Consumers assessing higher levels of usage risk will
(a) assess the e-service as being less useful and (b) will
have reduced intention to use the e-service.
Do Higher Risk Assessments Strengthen
the Relationship Between Subjective Norm and PU?
Increases in SN have a positive effect on assessments of an
ISs PU (Hartwick and Barki 1994; Venkatesh et al. 2003)
as well as employee intentions to adopt the IS (Thompson
et al. 1991; Venkatesh et al. 2003). Drawing on prior social
influence literature, we posit that effects of social influence
(both informational and normative) on consumer evalua-
tions of an e-service’s usefulness strengthen when the
e-service is assessed as being risky to use.
Reference groups exert informational social influence.
When consumers assess risk in a purchase situation they
often recall, infer, or seek out the opinions, evaluations,
and actions of credible referents (Miniard and Cohen
1983). Information gained directly or inferred from refer-
ents, can be used to increase the predictability of decision
outcomes, and reduce risk assessments (Dawes and Kagan
1988; Roselius 1971). Thus reference groups exert infor-
mational social influence (Bearden and Rose 1990; Kelman
1961; Miniard and Cohen 1983; Park and Lessig 1977).
Because consumers want to make informed decisions, in-
corporating the opinions of knowledgeable and credible
referents. Reference groups also exert normative social
influence. Rather than being based on underlying compli-
ance effects (often salient in organizational settings) for
consumer purchases normative social influence is believed
to be based on value-expressive influence (Park and Lessig
1977), or group identification effects (Bearden and Etzel
1982; Bearden and Rose 1990; Kelman 1961). Individuals
that value social group membership adopt opinions and
behaviors that resemble these referents, to improve their
self-image, and to reaffirm their sense of identity and at-
tachment to their social group.
We contend that when consumers feel apprehensive, and
become concerned about potential personal losses resultant
from e-service usage, they increasingly consider the opin-
ions that referents have or would provide (informational
influence) and whether referents would purchase (or approve
the purchase of) the e-service (normative social influence).
The heuristic of recalling or inferring important referent’s or
reference group’s opinions is well-studied (Chaiken and
Maheswaran 1994; Eagly and Chaiken 1993), consumers
can reduce their risk by adopting the implied opinions of
important referents. Related consumer behavior research
findings support the contention that consumers whom ex-
perience risk in a purchase situation tend to rely more on the
evaluations and opinions of referents (Gemünden 1985;
Mitra et al. 1999; Murray 1991; Roselius 1971).
Within IS research, SN is found to be a salient pre-
adoption predictor of PU for employees adopting an or-
ganizational IS (Hartwick and Barki 1994; Venkatesh et al.
2003). Strength of this relationship is unknown for con-
sumer e-service purchases, furthermore it is unknown
whether consumer risk levels affect the SN–PU relation-
ship. We propose a contingent relationship which is de-
picted in Figs. 1 and 2 and is tested as follows:
123

Fig. 2 Hypothesized
conditionalized relationships
H2a Higher usage risk levels strengthen the relationship
between SN and PU.
Do Higher Risk Assessments Strengthen
the Relationship Between SN and Intention to Use?
Classic social influence studies indicate that the effects of
social influence on decision making are strong when an
individual experiences uncertainty (an aspect of risk; Asch
1951; Deutsch and Gerard 1955). Reference groups’ in-
formational and normative social influences have been
shown to affect an individual’s purchasing behavior
(Bearden and Etzel 1982; Bearden and Rose 1990;
Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Miniard and Cohen 1983).
Similarly, consumers who believe a service is potentially
risky have been shown to increasingly seek out and rely
upon referents’ opinions (Mitra et al. 1999) when the
purchase may lead to potential losses.
Within IS research increases in SN have a positive effect
on employee intentions to adopt an IS (Hartwick and Barki
1994; Taylor and Todd 1995; Thompson et al. 1991;
Venkatesh et al. 2003). Less is known, however, about this
relationship for volitional information systems and ser-
vices. It also remains unknown whether the simple
heuristic of relying on referent’s opinions (Eagly and
Chaiken 1993) is more salient as consumer risk levels in-
crease (as captured by higher SN effect sizes).
Similar to our argument above, we believe that when
risk levels rise, social influences will more strongly affect
e-service usage decisions. Referent opinions and behav-
ioral prescriptions (whether communicated or inferred)
should become more salient and influential as consumers
risk levels increase, which suggests (see Figs. 1, 2):
H2b Higher assessed usage risk levels strengthen the SN
to intention to use relationship.
Do Higher Risk Assessments Weaken
the Relationship Between PEOU and PU?
We contend that consumer’s cognitive and emotional
concerns related to the personal losses resultant from using
an e-service reduce beliefs that the e-service is easy to use.
We base this contention partially on prior research which
123
M. S. Featherman, N. Hajli
suggests that consumer apprehension and anxiety related to
service purchases increase when perceptions of risk in-
crease (Chaudhuri 1997; Dowling and Staelin 1994; Fis-
cher 1970; Murray and Schlacter 1990). Similarly
individuals are found to experience computer anxiety re-
lated to the implications of using an IS (Brown et al. 2004;
Sievert et al. 1988; Simonson et al. 1987).
When consumers attend to cognitive and emotional re-
actions related to their assessed riskiness of using an
e-service, the increased cognitive resources employed
should shape assessments of the cognitive effort needed to
use the IS (its PEOU). The resource allocation perspective
may underlie this effect; when consumers feel anxious,
their attention may be diverting away from the (here
computing) task at hand to more salient negative thoughts
(Kanfer et al. 1994). Interfering with their ability to process
information (Ellis and Ashbrook 1988; Phillips et al. 1972).
PEOU evaluation cues may become less important and
therefore the normally positive effect of PEOU on system
usefulness may change for consumers that focus on the
negative aspects of usage.
As an example, while consumers use e-shopping Web
sites such as Polo.com because they are easy to use and
provide easier access to valued products (therefore causing
consumers to perceive the Web site as useful), increasing
the risk of using this technology reporting of a security
breach at Polo Ralph Lauren (wherein confidential credit
card information for 180,000 customers was stolen) may
significantly alter that relationship. While the ease of use of
such an e-commerce Web site remains essentially the
same, if such dangers and their assessment become salient,
PEOU is unlikely to drive increased levels of PU. This
relationship is depicted in Figs. 1 and 2 and suggests the
following:
H3a Higher usage risk levels weaken the PEOU to PU
effect.
Do Higher Risk Assessments Weaken
the Relationship Between PEOU and Intention
to Use?
Perceptions that an IS will be easy to learn and use
typically encourage employee intention to use that IS
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks...
(Venkatesh et al. 2003). It is unknown; however, whether
this effect changes when consumers divert attention to the
risks of IS usage. Due to both cognitive and emotional
reactions to risk (Chaudhuri 1997), the effect of an e-ser-
vice’s PEOU on usage decisions may differ. A mood
congruency effect (Cunningham 1988) may be invoked—
wherein people act in accordance with their mood—dis-
torting consumers’ PEOU beliefs toward negative process
expectancies (Phillips et al. 1972) in concert with negative
reactions to usage risks.
We posit that even if a system is easy to use, if such
usage is deemed risky, PEOU will have less of an effect on
actual usage decisions. Extending our prior example, while
a consumer may believe the Polo.com e-commerce Web
site is easy to use (and thus drive usage to some extent);
when the risk of using this technology increases (e.g.,
gaining knowledge of security breaches at Polo Ralph
Lauren), the positive impact of PEOU on purchasing ac-
tivity may diminish. While the actual ease of use of Polo.
com is unchanged, if such risky conditions are prevalent;
PEOU is unlikely to drive usage decisions. The potential
contingent nature of this relationship may help explain
inconsistent results for the PEOU to intent to use rela-
tionship (Gefen et al. 2000) (see Figs. 1, 2):
H3b Higher usage risk levels weaken the effect of PEOU
on intention to use an e-service.
Methodology
Our investigation is carried out in two studies. The first study
measures consumers’ e-service evaluations after they read
vendor provided e-service information and trial a demon-
stration software simulation of an electronic bill presentment
and payment service (hereafter e-bill pay service). Because
virtually all consumers have recurring monthly bills to pay,
this research context should be relevant for the research
participants. The second study provides further indications
of these effects and differs only in that consumers viewed a
very similar but less interactive (Flash! style) demonstration
video, rather than trial the demoware. Unexpectedly the
vendor changed the content of their Web site before study
two was executed. To maintain brand consistency, subjects
evaluated the same branded e-service, even though the pre-
sentation style of the training materials differed.
Statistical Methodology
Operationalization of Variables
Measurement of the research constructs, other than asses-
sed usage risk, utilizes pre-validated scales (Venkatesh
et al. 2003) (see Appendix Tables 5, 6). Following Segars
and Grover (1993), we adopt a three-item definition for
ease of use. The risk assessment measure employed is a
refinement, contextualization, and extension of prior risk
scales generated outside of the IS research context which
often utilized single items to capture each risk dimension
(Peter and Ryan 1976; Peter and Tarpey Sr 1975) and
therefore have questionable content validity. After re-
viewing prior IS-based research, the scales of perceived
risk were deemed to lack specificity (Jarvenpaa et al. 1999;
Pavlou 2003; Pavlou and Gefen 2004), overly focus on the
performance quality of the product being purchased online
(Teo and Yeong 2003) or lack parsimony. Therefore prior
risk scales (Featherman and Pavlou 2003; Grewal et al.
1994; Peter and Ryan 1976; Shimp and Bearden 1982)
were refined for the current e-services context. The parsi-
mony and increased precision of a shorter instrument
should enable the testing of a second-order overall usage
risk variable to match the theorized overall perceived risk
variable (Dowling and Staelin 1994).
Construct operationalization proceeded with the goal of
parsimoniously capturing the core domain of each theo-
rized dimension of usage risk. Guided by our Table 1
definitions, the risk scale uses a total of 12 items to capture
the six theorized risk dimensions, specifically consumer
assessments of potential e-service performance problems
(performance risk), and assessments of potential personal
losses to consumer privacy (privacy risk), time (time risk),
finances (financial risk), social status (social risk), and ego
(psychological risk) resultant from the recognition that a
bad purchase may create losses. All items use a seven-point
Likert-scale.
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, using Mplus 4 and
verified with Amos 4) is used to verify the dimensionality,
reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of
the 12-item usage risk assessment scale for the e-services
context.
Model Testing
The research model’s direct relationships are tested using a
structural equations model (SEM) approach (using Mplus
and verified with Amos). In addition, the hypothesized
moderated relationships of the research model are tested
using latent variable interactions using Mplus’ SEM-based
latent moderated structural equations test.
Study One
A sample (N = 495) was drawn from the undergraduate
business population of a major university. Six percent of
the sample was using a similar e-bill pay service; therefore,
these subjects were excluded from further analysis because
123
 M. S. Featherman, N. Hajli

the study examines pre-purchase evaluations. As 96 % of
the reduced sample (N = 467) reported they currently paid
monthly bills by mailing paper-based checks, the sample
was suitable for this study.
In a controlled university computer laboratory, subjects
evaluated an e-billpay service. Subjects read vendor-sup-
plied service information (averaging 10 min) including
privacy and security assurances, then performed an inter-
active hands-on software trial (averaging 20 min) using
vendor-provided demoware and a task sheet to encourage
uniform exposure. Using a fictitious checking account,
subjects viewed and scheduled payment for the six bills in
the inbox, verified check register account balances, and
performed personalization, reporting, and data exporting
tasks.
Study One Results
Psychometrics for the Usage Risk Variable
Coefficient a values for each risk factor of usage risk ranged
from .791 to .921, and the average variance extracted (AVE)
scores ranged from .907 to .963 (see Appendix Table 5).
Together these indicants provide evidence of instrument
reliability (Nunally and Bernstein 1978). The reliability and
reflective nature of each first-order risk dimension scale is
also supported by the majority of the variance of each item
being explained by the latent variable (Bollen 1998).
Following prior guidelines and examples in information
systems research (Doll et al. 1994; Segars and Grover
1993; Tanriverdi 2005, 2006), CFA (as implemented in
Mplus 4 and Amos 4) is used to verify the dimensionality,
reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of
the 12-item usage risk scale.
Three measurement models were compared to test the
scale’s dimensionality, and convergent and discriminant
validity (see Table 2). Model 1 hypothesizes that one
unidimensional first-order factor accounts for the variance
among the 12 measurement items. Model 2 hypothesizes
that the measurement items are grouped into six correlated
first-order factors. Model 3 hypothesizes that a second-
order latent variable parsimoniously explains the 15 inter-
factor correlations (pattern of interactions and covariance)
among the six first-order factors.
Model 2’s lower v2/df ratio and higher fit indices sug-
gest that a multi-dimensional model comprised six corre-
lated first-order factors is superior to a unidimensional first-
order factor model. Support is thus provided for the mul-
tidimensionality of the assessed risk scale. Model 2’s
standardized factor loadings for each measurement item are
all highly significant (p \ .001) indicating convergent va-
lidity. In addition, because the measurement items con-
verge on their respective factors and the factors are distinct
from each other, support for discriminant validity is also
obtained (Bagozzi 1980; Tanriverdi 2005).
Following Tanriverdi (2006), the following criteria are
used to test whether the data suggests a second-order
structure: (1) model statistics (Witte 1994), (2) the target
coefficient which compares the model’s v2 values (Tanaka
and Huba 1984), and (3) significance of the parameters
reflecting the second-order factor loadings (Venkatraman
1990). The model’s fit indices are similar for Models 2 and
3, indicating that each model fits the data well (Gefen et al.
2000). Considering the high number of first-order factors,
the target coefficient value of .854 provides strong support
for a second-order factor model (Tanaka and Huba 1984).
In addition, each risk factor second-order loading is highly
significant (p \ .001), reasonably well-balanced with paths
[.70 (see Appendix Table 5).
Taken together, adequate support is provided for ac-
cepting the second-order factor model, and its incorpora-
tion into the larger research model. While maintaining
instrument parsimony, this scale exhibits content and
construct validity.

Table 2 Goodness-of-fit indices for alternative models of assessed usage risk

v2 df v2/df RMR SRMR GFI/AGFI CFI RMSEA TCI

Sample 1
Model 1: one unidimensional first-order factor 1013.6 54 18.77 .215 0.086 .724/.601 0.748 .195 (.185–.206)
Model 2: six correlated first-order factors 57.7 39 1.48 .050 .020 .980/.960 0.995 .032 (.011–.049)
Model 3: second-order model 67.5 48 1.41 .058 .023 .976/.960 0.994 .032 (.013–.047) 0.854
Sample 2
Model 1: one unidimensional first-order factor 1381.9 54 25.59 .246 .120 .703/.571 0.616 .210 (.201–.214)
Model 2: six correlated first-order factors 105.3 39 2.70 .073 .032 .970/.941 0.981 .055 (.043–.068)
Model 3: second-order model 131.8 48 2.75 .088 .041 .963/.936 0.975 .059 (.047–.071) 0.799

123
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks...
Further Psychometrics
For the remaining operationalized variables, evidence of
strong internal reliability and convergent validity was
provided as each latent factor is able to extract the majority
of the total variance of each indicant (Fornell and Larcker
1981). Evidence of convergent validity is also provided by
the high-item loadings (ranging from .762 to .948), stan-
dardized Cronbach’s a scores (ranging from .823 to .948)
and high AVE scores (ranging from .778 to .926). The
correlation matrix of the latent variables (see Appendix
Table 6) also provides strong evidence of discriminant
validity. AVE (within-factor shared variance) scores shown
in the matrix diagonal were also considerably larger than
the squared correlation coefficients (r2) between variables
(Fornell and Larcker 1981).
Using the fit indice guidelines set forth by Bollen
(1998), and Gefen et al. (2000) suggest the research model
exhibited a good fit to the data considering the complexity
of the overall research model (GFI = .889, AGFI = .857,
CFI = .952, RMSEA = .067 (.062–.073), SRMR = .058,
and v2/df = 3.112 (see Appendix Fig. 4).
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis H1 that assessed usage risk decreases the PU
(b = -.181, p = .0001) and intent to use the e-service
(b = -.132, p = .0022) was supported. Hypothesis H2
that higher risk assessments strengthen the effect of SN on
PU (b = .108, p = .0346) and intention to use (b = .147,
p = .0056) was supported. The positive sign of the inter-
action terms suggests that the SN–PU and intention to use
effects strengthened as risk assessment levels increase.
Hypothesis H3 that assessed usage risk weakens the effect
of PEOU on PU (b = -.166, p = .0039) and intention to
use (b = -.127, p = .0221) was also supported. The
negative sign of the interaction terms suggests that the
PEOU–PU and intent to use effects weakened as assessed
levels of risk increase.
As a follow-on descriptive analysis of the hypothesized
contingent relationships, a tertiary split of the sample was
performed based on level of assessed risk. The creation of
sub-samples enabled the hypothesized conditional rela-
tionships to be estimated at low (N = 155), mid
(N = 149), and high (N = 163) levels of risk. Results re-
ported in Table 4 suggest that the predictors of PU varied
depending on level of usage risk. At low levels of risk, the
PEOU of the e-service strongly predicted PU, and SN ex-
hibited a small effect. Confirming prior interaction analysis
findings at mid and high levels of risk the effect of PEOU
weakened and the effect of SN strengthened. The predic-
tors of usage intention also varied by risk level. When risk
levels were low, EOU and PU were significant, and SN was
not. At midlevels of risk, usage intention was predicted by
PU, PEOU (to a less extent than when risk is low), and SN.
At high levels of risk, intent to use was no longer predicted
by the usefulness of the e-service, but rather by PEOU and
to an increasing extent on SN.
Study One Discussion
Consumer assessments of an e-service’s risks of usage
negatively influenced their evaluations of its usefulness and
their intent to use the e-service. Support for each hy-
pothesized conditional relationship was found, suggesting
that for the e-services context four technology acceptance
relationships may be contingent on the level of usage risk
that consumers identify. The effect of normative concerns
(as captured by SN) on PU and usage intentions strength-
ened as a function of assessed risk. The usefulness and
usage intent increasing effect of the e-service’s PEOU
weakened when risk levels increased. These empirical re-
sults suggest that consumers pay increased attention to
normative concerns and decreased attention to an e-ser-
vice’s ease of use as risk concerns rise.
At higher risk levels consumers may have focused on
weighing the potential losses resultant from IS usage and
the related internal search to gain perspective by recalling
or inferring normative beliefs of important referents. Sup-
porting prior social influence research, our results suggest
as risk levels increase consumers increasingly factor in
social influences.
Study Two
A second study was performed to provide further indica-
tions of the hypothesized effects. A second sample
(N = 602) selected from the same sampling population
yielded 557 responses after screening out current e-billpay
users. The identical setting, task, and procedure were uti-
lized. As mentioned, participants watched demonstration
video rather than trial demonstration software.
Study Two Results
Psychometrics
High factor loadings and t-values for the observed risk
items and first-order factors are shown in Appendix
Table 5, again indicating strong convergent validity for the
risk assessment scale. The scales also exhibited reliability
and convergent validity (see Appendix Table 5), as Cron-
bach a scores were [.72 and AVE scores were [.886
(Fornell and Larcker 1981). Except for the social risk first-
order factor, the proportion of variance in the observed
123
 M. S. Featherman, N. Hajli

items (and structural coefficients) accounted for by the
corresponding latent variable was generally [50 %, indi-
cating strong common factor reliability.
Table 2 above presents the CFA derived goodness-of-fit
indices for the different factor structures of the usage risk
scale with results again suggest the parsimonious second-
order factor structure acceptably fits the data. Almost 80 %
of the variation in the six first-order factors is explained by
the second-order overall risk factor, providing confirmatory
evidence of a higher-order overall usage risk construct
(Tanaka and Huba 1984) for the e-services context. Evi-
dence of strong psychometric properties for the remaining
research variables is indicated by high-item factor loadings
(.802–.963) and a scores (.869–.941). The research model
was again tested with a SEM (see Appendix Fig. 4), which
indicated a good fit to the data [GFI = .901, AGFI = .872,
CFI = .954, RMSEA = .060 (.055–.065), SRMR = .060
and v2/df = 3.007] for the complex overall research model.
Hypothesis Testing
Supporting H1 higher levels of assessed risk decreased PU
(b = -.434, p \ .0001) and consumer intention to use the
e-service (b = -.356, p \ .0001). The details of the hy-
pothesized contingent relationships are reported in Table 3
above. Supporting H2 usage risk strengthened the effect of
SN on PU (b = .152, p \ .0001) and consumer intent to
use the e-service (b = .142, p = .0009). The positive sign
of the interaction terms again indicates that these effects
strengthened as risk levels increases. For this sample,
higher risk levels did not weaken the effect of PEOU on PU
(H3a; b = -.066, p = .2692), but did weaken the effect of
PEOU on intent to use (b = -.192, p = .0023). The
negative sign of the interaction terms again indicate that
the effects of PEOU weakened as risk concerns increased.
Analysis of model effects after a tertiary split of the sample
by level of assessed risk, largely mirrored previous results
(see Table 4 above). As risk concerns shifted from mid-
level to high, the effect of the predictors of e-service use-
fulness and intent to use shifted from PEOU to SN.
Post-hoc Analysis
During the follow-on analysis the assumption that risk’s
effect is linear was also questioned. For consumers re-
porting high levels of usage risk, neither criterion variable
was significantly affected by their risk concerns. After
further probing, the effect of risk on PU and intended usage
was found to be curvilinear rather than monotonically
linear. For example, SEM-estimated effect of risk on intent
to use for both samples 1 (bRisk = -.755, p \ .0001,
b2Risk = .381, p = .0009) and sample 2 (bRisk = -.936,
p \ .0001, b2Risk = .210, p = .0397) suggests a curvilinear
effect. These SEM-based results were confirmed by
analyzing the partial correlation for the quadratic term,
which was significant at p \ .001 (.187, .230) for both
samples.
Figure 3 scatter plots of the assessed risk to usage in-
tention effect suggest that a parabolic, concave upward
slope traces this relationship. The slope changes over the
range of the risk values, declining, leveling off, and then
rising. Increasing risk levels contributed to decreased
consumer intention to use the e-service; however, only up

Table 3 SEM-based interaction analysis of the hypothesized moderated relationships

Research model Effects Sample 1 Sample 2 Research model paths Effects Sample 1 Sample 2
paths Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg.
coefficient (p) coefficient (p) coefficient (p) coefficient (p)

H2a H2b
SN–usefulness Focal .342 (.0001) .205 (.0011) SN–intention to use Focal .516*** .403***
Risk–usefulness Moderator -.882*** -.861*** Risk–intention to use Moderator -.855*** -1.027***
Risk * SN– Interaction .108 (.0346) .152*** Risk * SN–intention to Interaction .147 (.0056) .142 (.0009)
usefulness use
H3a H3b
EOU–usefulness Focal .795*** .407*** EOU–intention to use Focal .825*** .290***
Risk–usefulness Moderator -.156 (.0268) -.535*** Risk–intention to use Moderator -.077 (ns) -.787***
Risk * PEOU– Interaction -.166 (.0039) -.066 (ns) Risk * PEOU– Interaction -.127 (.0221) -.192 (.0023)
usefulness intention to use
PEOU perceived ease of use, risk assessed usage risk, usefulness perceived usefulness, SN subjective norm
*** p \ .0001

123
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks...

Table 4 Follow-up descriptive analysis of hypothesized moderated relationships

Sample 1 Sample 2
Low risk Moderate risk High risk Low risk Moderate risk High risk
(N = 155) (N = 149) (N = 163) (N = 181) (N = 182) (N = 194)

DV = intention to use
Perceived usefulness (PU) .312 (.0002) .311 (.0005) .184 (.0774) .487*** .427*** .335 (.0001)
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) .494*** .298 (.0003) .299 (.0010) .152 (.0248) .119 (.1627) -.035 (.6255)
Subjective norm (SN) .116 (.0572) .344*** .381*** .183 (.0081) .287 (.0001) .368***
R2 (%) 63.80 55.80 48.10 39.80 35.00 35.60
DV = perceived usefulness
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) .702*** .538*** .523*** .360*** .536*** .348***
Subjective norm (SN) .158 (.0129) .319*** .312 (.0001) .192 (.0134) .166 (.0242) .457***
R2 (%) 57.30 46.90 48.00 18.20 29.60 34.60
*** p \ .0001

Fig. 3 Graph of the curvilinear 8 8

effects of assessed usage risk on
7 7
criterion variables
6 6
Intention to Use

Intention to Use
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Assessed Usage Risk Assessed Usage Risk
Sample 1 Sample 2

to a point, after which the riskiness of the e-service di-
minished in importance as an inhibitor of usage. Con-
sumers reporting high levels of usage risk levels may be
denying, avoiding, or suppressing their risk beliefs (and
perhaps emotional reactions) when making e-service
evaluations and usage decisions.
Study Two Discussion
Results confirmed the hypothesized effects of usage risk for
the research model, context, and sampling population. As
compared to study one, evaluations of the e-service’s
usefulness were more strongly reduced by assessments of
its usage risk. The stronger direct effects of assessed risk
may be attributed to the vendor replacing the interactive
demoware with the animated demonstration video. In ad-
dition consumers may have had fewer cues to base their
evaluation of the e-service’s likely PEOU, which may have
contributed to PEOU not being a significant predictor of
usage decisions (Dillon and Morris 1997; Gefen et al.
2000). The effects of social influence again rose as risk
levels increased. Moderate support was found suggesting
that higher levels of usage risk weakened the PEOU–PU
relationship, and strong support again suggests the PEOU
to intention to use relationship is weakened as usage risk
concerns increase.

123

General Discussion
This research examined the multiple effects of consumer
assessments of the risk of using an e-service. Using an
original scale, usage risk effects were investigated at two
levels: (1) as a direct effect on consumer evaluations of an
e-service’s usefulness, and their intention to use the
e-service, and (2) as a moderator of several established
technology acceptance relationships. In this section, we
briefly summarize and explain our findings, then discuss
their derived theoretical and practical implications.
Summary of Results
Within the context of consumers evaluating an e-bill pay
service, support was found for the hypothesized direct and
moderating effects of assessed usage risk. Because the
sampling population represents a younger, more tech-
nology-savvy market segment, reported results are con-
sidered to be conservative measures of the hypothesized
effects, for e-services specifically, and for risky ISs in
general.
Hypothesis set 1 focused on measuring the extent to
which usage risk impedes consumer e-service evaluations
and usage decisions. Higher risk levels linearly reduced
usefulness evaluations and usage intention; however, only
up to a point, after which the relationship reversed sug-
gesting a threshold and curvilinear effect (see Fig. 3
above). This identified curvilinear relationship suggests a
Pollyanna effect which occurs when individuals irra-
tionally suppress their uncertainty and assessment of po-
tential risks, dangers, and losses, rationalizing that even
though likely the loss cannot happen to them (Matlin and
Stang 1978; Montgomery 1989). Prior attitude research
finds a similar curvilinear relationship, a reversal of the
effect of perceived threats, at its highest levels. In this
research, at high levels of perceived threats, individuals
reduced their evaluative processing (Jepson and Chaiken
1990) exhibiting avoidance behaviors (Eagly and Chaiken
1993; Wood 2000), and worsened attitudes toward safety
products. Prior organizational decision-making research
reports a similar denial and avoidance of risk when risk
levels are high (Allaire and Firsirotu 1989).
The data of the current study suggest a threshold and
Pollyanna effect. Across both studies when the risk was too
high, consumers appear to have avoided and ignored the
risks of e-service usage and revert to basing e-service
evaluations and usage decisions on simple decision rules,
such as inferring referent’s opinions. The data suggest that
at high levels, usage risk may indirectly rather than
123
M. S. Featherman, N. Hajli
directly, affect e-service evaluations and usage decisions,
by moderating other decision criteria.
Hypotheses set 2 examined whether higher levels of risk
increase the effect of social influences (as captured by SN)
on consumer usefulness evaluations and usage intentions.
Our rationale being that when consumers experience higher
probabilities of severe personal losses in a purchasing si-
tuation, they more closely consider the perceived opinions
and evaluations of referents, and whether important refer-
ents would approve of their e-service usage. Findings
suggest that both of these relationships are strengthened as
consumer risk assessments increase.
Hypotheses set 3 centered on whether consumer
assessments of risk decrease the effect of PEOU on an
e-service’s usefulness and usage intention. As hy-
pothesized, at higher risk levels the influence of ease of use
on both PU and intention to use decreased. As argued in
our Polo.com example, if usage risks are deemed to be
high, the ease of which a consumer can navigate a Web site
shopping system is less likely to translate into perceptions
of usefulness and usage behaviors.
Across both studies the salient factors affecting e-ser-
vice usage decision making, shifted depending on level of
risk. When risk concerns were low, the traditional an-
tecedents PEOU and PU (and to a less extent social in-
fluences) predicted e-service usage intention. Averaging
values across studies, when risk concerns are high, pre-
dictors of intent to use shifted to an assessment of the social
influences affecting the usage decision, and to a much less
extent (if at all) the PEOU and PU of the e-service. These
results are convergent with prior research which suggests
that vendor-provided messages become less persuasive
when consumers perceive threats and emotional tension
(Eagly and Chaiken 1993) as consumers attend to the
personal threats rather than to the vendor messages. This
shift in predictor salience found across both studies sug-
gests that usage risk is useful as a market segmentation
variable.
Contributions to Theory
We do not propose that our research model should supplant
prior e-commerce evaluations-intentions models. Rather
we propose that this research makes four central theoretical
contributions to marketing in social commerce era lit-
erature. First, this research helps clarify the dimensionality
and structure of consumer risk assessments for the e-ser-
vice context, by developing a theoretically driven, parsi-
monious scale of consumer’s usage risk. Second, it refines
prior findings by making the case that for the e-services
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks...
category two core predictors (PEOU and SN) of informa-
tion system usefulness evaluations and intended usage may
be contingent on levels of usage risk. Third, the proposed
contingent effect of risk can aid in the further segmenting
of online consumers. Fourth, this research suggests that the
direct effects of usage risk are nonlinear and that a
Pollyanna effect may exist. Together these contributions
extend the ethical part of e-commerce literature, modeling
consumer self-service technology adoption behavior for the
e-service context at a higher level of specificity. The failure
to consider possible contingencies affecting consumer
e-commerce behaviors compromises the generalization of
prior research findings.
Our first theoretical contribution is related to develop-
ment and presentation of a second-order latent variable
capturing consumer’s level of assessed usage risk. In
comparison to first-order models with correlated factors,
second-order models provide a more parsimonious and
interpretable model (Chen et al. 2005) of the literature-
based phenomenon, when an overall effect is theorized.
Using a higher-order risk factor structure that reflects a
theorized higher-order overall risk construct is of increased
theoretical interest, in comparison to prior research which
primarily views perceived risk as a first-order unidimen-
sional construct (e.g., Jarvenpaa et al. 1999; Pavlou 2003;
Pavlou and Gefen 2004). While the offered risk scale does
not exhaustively capture the domain of each risk dimen-
sion, it parsimoniously captures their core essence. The
provided scale can be easily incorporated into larger re-
search models, perhaps enabling greater nomological in-
sight into the network of relationships among an e-vendor’s
trustworthiness, consumer assessments of risk, and con-
sumers’ trusting behaviors.
Our second theoretical contribution is based on the
continual need to examine key theoretical relationships and
assumptions when extending research models to new
adoption contexts. Our research tested the assumption that
several established technology acceptance relationships are
linear across all consumers. For the e-services context,
each tested effect was contingent on consumer assessments
of risk. These results may help explain prior inconsisten-
cies in the effects of SN (Karahanna et al. 1999) and PEOU
(Gefen et al. 2000). While PEOU is a core e-service
evaluation criterion, the data suggest that when consumers
assess an e-service to be risky to use, consumers shift their
evaluative focus from ease of use to assessments of usage
risks and social influences. This finding is especially per-
tinent to financial e-services, as PEOU was found to be the
most important predictor or attitudes of an Internet banking
application (Chau and Lai 2003). This finding suggests that
future e-commerce and social commerce research should
employ increasingly specific measures of risk and social
influences. The findings are believed to affect many con-
sumer-oriented e-services and self-service technologies
which may be considered risky to use.
Our third theoretical contribution is based on identifying
usage risk as a consumer segmentation variable. By seg-
menting consumers by their risk levels, researchers may
gain further insight into online consumer behavior (as
found here) useful to design more specific risk-reducing
strategies. Our final theoretical contribution focuses on the
assumption that the effects of risk in e-commerce are lin-
ear. Prior IS research has not investigated whether the ef-
fect of risk in consumer IS evaluations and intended usage
is monotonically linear or rather changes over its range of
measured responses. This research suggests that the
harmful effects of risk were curvilinear, reducing e-service
usage decisions up to a threshold, after which the usage risk
is avoided or ignored. These findings contribute to the
foundation for future research related to improving our
understanding of how consumers evaluate potentially risky
information technology products, information systems, and
e-services.
Contributions to Practice
Uncertainties related to the security, privacy, and perfor-
mance efficacy of e-services can increase consumer ex-
pectations that e-service usage can result in personal losses
(e.g., to information privacy and finances). As more ser-
vices are rehosted as online services, the software designer
should be cognizant of the emotional aspects of service
usage. Software developers responsible for redesigning
physical processes and deploying them as digitized e-ser-
vices (e.g., e-ticketing, e-permitting, and e-payment sys-
tems), should recognize that their human–computer
interface (HCI) designs can contribute to or allay consumer
apprehension, anxiety and risk concerns, and resultant
usage behaviors.
Findings derived from this investigation of how finan-
cial e-services are evaluated suggests that as consumer
assessments of usage risk rise, consumers base evaluations
and usage decisions more on referent opinions and
evaluations and less on the PEOU, which is perhaps the
most core attribute an e-service. For consumer segments
that find usage risk levels to be moderate to high, con-
sumers may be distracted from a systematic processing of
core e-service attributes by the usage risks. In these cases,
development efforts should be channeled into improving
123

(and communicating) the privacy, security, and perfor-
mance efficacy of e-services, and of providing images of
credible referents using the e-service.
Usage risk can also be interpreted and leveraged as a market
segmentation variable suggesting that different approaches to
e-service development and marketing are needed for different
consumer segments depending on levels of usage risk. When
focus groups representing a consumer segment identify an
e-service offering as being low risk, vendor communications
should emphasize service quality, performance efficacy, and
interface ease of use to this market segment. Conversely for
market segments that assess the e-service as risky to use the
vendor (in addition to promoting the e-service’s privacy and
security) vendor communications should use images of rep-
resentative consumer referents (friends, colleagues, and rela-
tives) endorsing and using the e-service, or integrate third-
party reputation systems (e.g., consumerreports.org, cnet.com)
to allow consumers to rely more on social influences. Because
results suggest that social influences are especially important
for risky IS usage decisions, consumers should especially ap-
preciate seeing representative examples of their social group
using or advocating usage of the potentially risky e-service.
More generally, vendors of potentially risky information
systems and services should also clarify, amplify, and re-
move all ambiguity regarding the usefulness of their of-
ferings. Results suggest that the usefulness of an e-service
reduces the harmful effects of usage risk; however, the
e-service’s usefulness may be of decreasing importance to
usage decisions as risk levels rise. Therefore clarifying and
conveying an e-service’s usefulness to the consumer are
critical for multiple reasons.
Using the provided parsimonious scale of usage risk,
system developers and marketers can also test different
HCI designs for their risk-reducing ability. If as results
suggest, system usability becomes less important as risk
levels rise, then other aspects of the HCI must be em-
phasized to reduce perceived usage risks and encourage
adoption. Results suggest that only when consumer risk
levels are reduced to an acceptable level can consumers
strongly factor in the usability of an e-service into their
purchase decisions.
Limitations and Future Research
The effects of only two of the many proposed predictors of
IS usage intent were investigated for contingencies based
123
M. S. Featherman, N. Hajli
on level of usage risk. Future e-commerce research should
examine whether the effects of other predictors of IS usage
are also made contingent by usage risk. Further it can be
argued that a limitation of this study is its investigation of
usage risk in isolation from related concepts such as vendor
trustworthiness, and consumer trust in an e-service provi-
der. This research began with the claim that the under-
standing of assessed risk in e-commerce research is
incomplete, and that it is useful to disentangle the distinctly
different constructs of assessed usage risk from trustwor-
thiness and trust in order to further our understanding of
assessed usage risk. By studying usage risk in isolation, we
have gained some insights that may help inform how future
research may best proceed, such as how usage risk and
other constructs (such as vendor trustworthiness) may act
together to influence consumer attitudes and e-commerce
activity. The current study which placed central focus on
the effects of usage risk alone can therefore be viewed as a
useful, but limited step in furthering research in this area.
Conclusion
While consumers are given new and enjoyable social
commerce systems to shop online, concurrently consumers
are also bombarded with news reports of security breaches,
identity theft, and Internet-based fraud by increasing
popularity of social networking sites in social commerce
era. Exposure to news reports of potential dangers and
personal losses add to consumer doubt, indecision, and
uncertainty, which makes consumer evaluation processes
more complex for potentially risky services. Our investi-
gation of the e-services context suggests that consumers
approach self-service technology usage decisions differ-
ently when the self-service technology is deemed risky to
use. Established research models explaining consumer
evaluations and usage of self-service technology fail to
explicitly account for the direct and moderating effects of
usage risk. In an era of social commerce, with changing
technologies to better shape how consumers evaluate ser-
vices which expose the consumer to potential personal
losses, this is an important omission.
Appendix
See Fig. 4; Tables 5 and 6.
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks...

Fig. 4 SEM results for the overall research model

Table 5 Psychometrics for the assessed usage risk scale

Sample 1 Sample 2
2
Item R (reliability) Item loading R2 (reliability)
loading (t) (%) (t) (%)

Performance risks
(1) The Internet is not reliable enough to enable the e-billpay service .787* 61.9 .825* 68.0
to perform correctly
(2) The e-billpay service probably probably will make mistakes and .958 (19.8) 91.8 .846 (18.2) 71.6
process my payments incorrectly
Financial risks
(1) Using an e-billpayment service would lead to a financial loss .872* 76.0 .702* 49.2
(2) My financial situation might get worse if I use an e-billpay system .862 (19.9) 74.3 .812 (13.9) 65.9
Privacy risks
(1) If you use an e-billpayment service you will lose control over the .876* 76.7 .834* 69.5
privacy of your payment information
(2) Using an e-billpayment service would lead to a loss of privacy for .781 (17.7) 61.0 .805 (15.8) 64.9
me because my personal information would be used without my
knowledge
Time risks
(1) The time lost spent setting up and learning how to use e-billpay .771* 59.4 .885* 78.3
makes them risky
(2) I would waste a lot of time switching to an e-billpay payment .828 (18.2) 68.6 .713 (15.5) 50.8
method
Psychological risks
(1) Paying bills online would make me worry about my finances .862* 74.3 .868* 75.3
(2) In comparison to receiving paper bills and mailing paper checks, I .837 (20.8) 70.0 .798 (19.9) 63.7
would lose my peace of mind using an online e-billpayment service
Social risks
(1) Using an e-billpay service would lead to a loss of status for me .957* 91.5 .928* 86.0
because my friends and relatives would think less highly of me
(2) Using the e-billpay service will harm the way others think of me .893 (28.6) 79.8 .915 (24.3) 83.7

123
 M. S. Featherman, N. Hajli

Table 5 continued
Risk factor Sample 1 Sample 2
2
Standard R (reliability) Cronbach’s X (SD) Standard R2 (reliability) (%) Cronbach’s X (SD)
structure (%) a/AVE structure a/AVE
coefficient (t) coefficient (t)

Second-order factor loadings, R2 values, and descriptives for each first-order risk factor
(1) Performance risks .817* 66.8 .860, .936 3.06 (1.36) .774* 59.9 .822, .921 3.32 (1.32)
(2) Financial risk .794 (12.7) 63.0 .858, .936 2.84 (1.49) .792 (11.1) 62.7 .726, .886 3.32 (1.35)
(3) Privacy risk .818 (13.0) 66.8 .892, .907 3.64 (1.57) .694 (11.2) 48.1 .896, .910 4.24 (1.47)
(4) Time risk .869 (12.5) 75.5 .819, .920 2.59 (1.43) .709 (11.9) 50.2 .774, .903 2.70 (1.31)
(5) Psychological risk .902 (13.8) 81.4 .791, .909 3.01 (1.57) .893 (14.1) 79.7 .734, .888 3.36 (1.57)
(6) Social risk .716 (12.3) 51.2 .921, .963 2.13 (1.44) .501 (9.32) 25.1 .918, .961 1.92 (1.20)

AVE average variance extracted (square root of the average principal components extracted communality)
* A parameter fixed at 1.0. T-values for item factor loadings and factor structural coefficients are indicated in parentheses

Table 6 Correlation matrix for the latent variables

# Items a X (SD) 1 2 3 4 5

Sample 1
(1) Intention to use 3 .948 4.67 (1.66) .926
(2) Perceived usefulness 4 .923 4.95 (1.53) .704 .909
(3) Second order usage risk 12 .940 2.87 (1.21) -.334 -.363 .898
(4) Perceived ease of use 3 .923 5.25 (1.45) .661 .692 -.426 .922
(5) Subjective norm 2 .823 3.01 (1.43) .328 .245 .288 .092 .778
Sample 2
(1) Intention to use 2 .941 4.12 (1.67) .972
(2) Perceived usefulness 4 .940 4.68 (1.47) .637 .893
(3) Second order usage risk 12 .899 3.04 (1.03) -.524 -.541 .904
(4) Perceived ease of use 3 .930 5.31 (1.37) .388 .540 -.448 .940
(5) Subjective norm Maximum likelihood extract 2 .869 2.53 (1.40) .237 .127 .223 -.089 .720
AVE average variance extracted (square root of the average principal components extracted communality)
* A parameter fixed at 1.0. T-values for item factor loadings and factor structural coefficients are indicated in parentheses

References Bettman, J. R. (1973). Perceived risk and its components: A model

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and
predicting social. In Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Allaire, Y., & Firsirotu, M. E. (1989). Coping with strategic
uncertainty. Sloan Management Review, 30(3), 7–16.
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification
and distortion of judgments. In Groups, leadership, and men (pp.
222–236).
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Causal modeling in marketing. New York ua:
Wiley.
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on
product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 9(2), 183–194.
Bearden, W. O., & Rose, R. L. (1990). Attention to social comparison
information: An individual difference factor affecting consumer
conformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 461–471.
and empirical test. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 184–190.
Bollen, K. A. (1998). Structural equation models. New York: Wiley
Online Library.
Brown, S. A., Fuller, R. M., & Vician, C. (2004). Who’s afraid of the
virtual world? Anxiety and computer-mediated communication.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(2), 2.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and
normative social influence in buyer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research, 2, 206–215.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias
systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument
ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460.
Chau, P. Y., & Lai, V. S. (2003). An empirical investigation of the
determinants of user acceptance of internet banking. Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 13(2),
123–145.

123
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks...
Chaudhuri, A. (1997). Consumption emotion and perceived risk: A
macro-analytic approach. Journal of Business Research, 39(2),
81–92.
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Teacher’s corner:
Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models.
Structural Equation Modeling, 12(3), 471–492.
Cheng, P.-Y., & Chu, M.-C. (2013). Behavioral factors affecting
students’ intentions to enroll in business ethics courses: A
comparison of the theory of planned behavior and social
cognitive theory using self-identity as a moderator. Journal of
Business Ethics, 1–12.
Chung, S., Lee, K. Y., & Kim, K. (2014). Job performance through
mobile enterprise systems: The role of organizational agility,
location independence, and task characteristics. Information and
Management, 51(6), 605–617. doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.05.007.
Cox, D. F. (1967). Risk taking and information handling in consumer
behavior. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Cox, D. F., & Rich, S. U. (1964). Perceived risk and consumer
decision-making: The case of telephone shopping. Journal of
Marketing Research, 1, 32–39.
Cranor, L. F., Guduru, P., & Arjula, M. (2006). User interfaces for
privacy agents. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Inter-
action, 13(2), 135–178.
Cronan, T., & Al-Rafee, S. (2008). Factors that influence the intention
to pirate software and media. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4),
527–545. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9366-8.
Cunningham, S. M. (1967). The major dimensions of perceived risk.
In Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior
(pp. 82–108). Boston: Harvard University.
Cunningham, M. R. (1988). What do you do when you’re happy or
blue? Mood, expectancies, and behavioral interest. Motivation
and Emotion, 12(4), 309–331.
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal
amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 67–88.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,
13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User
acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two
theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Dawes, R. M., & Kagan, J. (1988). Rational choice in an uncertain
world. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and
informational social influences upon individual judgment. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629.
Dillon, A., & Morris, M. (1997). How user perceptions influence
software use. IEEE Software, 14(4), 58–65.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor
analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS
Quarterly, 18(4), 453–461.
Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and
intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research,
21(1), 119–134.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes.
Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Ellis, H. C., & Ashbrook, P. W. (1988). Resource allocation model of
the effects of depressed mood states on memory. In Affect,
cognition and social behavior (pp. 25–43). Toronto: Hogrefe.
Featherman, M. S., Miyazaki, A. D., & Sprott, D. E. (2010). Reducing
online privacy risk to facilitate e-service adoption: The influence
of perceived ease of use and corporate credibility. Journal of
Services Marketing, 24(3), 219–229.
Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services
adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International
Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474.
Fischer, W. F. (1970). Theories of anxiety. New York: Harper and
Row.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Gefen, D. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, 3(1), 2.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in
online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1),
51–90.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation
modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
4(1), 7.
Gemünden, H. G. (1985). Perceived risk and information search. A
systematic meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 2(2), 79–100.
Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J., & Marmorstein, H. (1994). The moderating
effects of message framing and source credibility on the price–
perceived risk relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 21,
145–153.
Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2009). Consumer e-shopping acceptance:
Antecedents in a technology acceptance model. Journal of
Business Research, 62(5), 565–571.
Hajli, N. (2014). The role of social support on relationship quality and
social commerce. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 87, 17–27.
Hajli, N. (2015). Social commerce constructs and consumer’s
intention to buy. International Journal of Information Manage-
ment, 35(2), 183–191. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.12.005.
Hajli, N., & Lin, X. (2014). Exploring the security of information
sharing on social networking sites: The role of perceived control
of information. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-
014-2346-x.
Hajli, N., Sims, J., Featherman, M., & Love, P. E. D.
(2014). Credibility of information in online communities.
Journal of Strategic Marketing,. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2014.
920904.
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user
participation in information system use. Management Science,
40(4), 440–465.
Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Peralta, M. (1999). Building
consumer trust online. Communications of the ACM, 42(4),
80–85.
Jacoby, J., & Kaplan, L. B. (1972). The components of perceived risk.
Advances in Consumer Research, 3(3), 382–383.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Saarinen, L. (1999). Consumer
trust in an internet store: A cross-cultural validation. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2), 1–6.
Jepson, C., & Chaiken, S. (1990). Chronic issue-specific fear inhibits
systematic processing of persuasive communications. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 61–84.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T. C., Dugdale, B., & Nelson, L.
(1994). Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task perfor-
mance: A resource allocation perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79(6), 826.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information
technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison
of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2),
183–213.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 25(1), 57–78.
123

Lee, S.-G., Trimi, S., & Kim, C. (2013). The impact of cultural
differences on technology adoption. Journal of World Business,
48(1), 20–29.
Lee, C. S., Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Chudoba, K. M. (2014).
Investigating the relationship between perceived risks in com-
munication and ICT-enabled communicative behaviors. Infor-
mation and Management, 51(6), 688–699. doi:10.1016/j.im.
2014.05.008.
Liao, C., Lin, H.-N., & Liu, Y.-P. (2010). Predicting the use of pirated
software: A contingency model integrating perceived risk with
the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,
91(2), 237–252.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’
information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale,
and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4),
336–355.
Marshall, G. W., Moncrief, W. C., Rudd, J. M., & Lee, N. (2012).
Revolution in sales: The impact of social media and related
technology on the selling environment. Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 32(3), 349–363.
Matlin, M. W., & Stang, D. J. (1978). The Pollyanna principle:
Selectivity in language, memory, and thought. Cambridge, MA:
Schenkman Publishing Company.
Miniard, P. W., & Cohen, J. B. (1983). Modeling personal and
normative influences on behavior. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 10, 169–180.
Mitchell, V.-W. (1994). 30 years of perceived risk: Some research
issues. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the marketing
science conference.
Mitchell, V.-W. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations
and models. European Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), 163–195.
Mitchell, V.-W., & Greatorex, M. (1993). Risk perception and
reduction in the purchase of consumer services. Service Indus-
tries Journal, 13(4), 179–200.
Mitra, K., Reiss, M. C., & Capella, L. M. (1999). An examination of
perceived risk, information search and behavioral intentions in
search, experience and credence services. Journal of Services
Marketing, 13(3), 208–228.
Montgomery, H. (1989). From cognition to action: The search for
dominance in decision making. In H. Montgomery, O. Svenson
(Eds.), Process and structure in human decision making (pp.
23–50). Chichester: Wiley.
Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: Consumer
information acquisition activities. The Journal of Marketing, 55,
10–25.
Murray, K. B., & Schlacter, J. L. (1990). The impact of services
versus goods on consumers’ assessment of perceived risk and
variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1),
51–65.
Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Pai, F.-Y., & Huang, K.-I. (2011). Applying the Technology
Acceptance Model to the introduction of healthcare information
systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(4),
650–660.
Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2009). Whistleblowing as planned
behavior—A survey of South Korean Police Officers. Journal of
Business Ethics, 85(4), 545–556. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9788-
y.
Park, J., Lee, D., & Ahn, J. (2001). Risk-focused e-commerce adoption
model: A cross-country study. Journal of Global Information
Technology Management, 7(2), 6–30.
Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and housewives:
Differences in susceptibility to reference group influence.
Journal of Consumer Research, 4(2), 102–110.
123
M. S. Featherman, N. Hajli
Park, N., Roman, R., Lee, S., & Chung, J. E. (2009). User acceptance
of a digital library system in developing countries: An applica-
tion of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal
of Information Management, 29(3), 196–209.
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce:
Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134.
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building effective online
marketplaces with institution-based trust. Information Systems
Research, 15(1), 37–59.
Peter, J. P., & Ryan, M. J. (1976). An investigation of perceived risk
at the brand level. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 184–188.
Peter, J. P., & Tarpey, L. X., Sr. (1975). A comparative analysis of
three consumer decision strategies. Journal of Consumer
Research, 2(1), 29–37.
Phillips, B. N., Martin, R. P., & Meyers, J. (1972). Interventions in
relation to anxiety in school. Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory
and Research, 2, 410–464.
Roman, S. (2007). The ethics of online retailing: A scale development
and validation from the consumers’ perspective. Journal of
Business Ethics, 72(2), 131–148.
Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods.
The Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56–61.
Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of
use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quar-
terly, 17, 517–525.
Shimp, T. A., & Bearden, W. O. (1982). Warranty and other extrinsic
cue effects on consumers’ risk perceptions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 9, 38–46.
Shin, D.-H. (2013). User experience in social commerce: In friends
we trust. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(1), 52–67.
Sievert, M., Albritton, R. L., Roper, P., & Clayton, N. (1988).
Investigating computer anxiety in an academic library. Informa-
tion Technology and Libraries, 7(3), 243–252.
Simonson, M. R., Maurer, M., Montag-Torardi, M., & Whitaker, M.
(1987). Development of a standardized test of computer literacy
and a computer anxiety index. Journal of Educational Comput-
ing Research, 3(2), 231–247.
Stephen, A. T., & Toubia, O. (2010). Deriving value from social
commerce networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2),
215–228. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.2.215.
Stone, R. N., & Grønhaug, K. (1993). Perceived risk: Further
considerations for the marketing discipline. European Journal of
Marketing, 27(3), 39–50.
Svensson, G., Wood, G., & Callaghan, M. (2010). A corporate model
of sustainable business practices: An ethical perspective. Journal
of World Business, 45(4), 336–345.
Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1984). Confirmatory hierarchical factor
analyses of psychological distress measures. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 621.
Tanriverdi, H. (2005). Information technology relatedness, knowl-
edge management capability, and performance of multibusiness
firms. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 311–334.
Tanriverdi, H. (2006). Performance effects of information technology
synergies in multibusiness firms. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 57–77.
Taylor, J. W. (1974). The role of risk in consumer behavior. The
Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 54–60.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information
technology usage: A test of competing models. Information
Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
Teo, T. S., & Yeong, Y. D. (2003). Assessing the consumer decision
process in the digital marketplace. Omega, 31(5), 349–363.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal
computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS
Quarterly, 15(1), 125–143.
Self-Service Technologies and e-Services Risks...
Van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., & Creemers, M. (2003).
Understanding online purchase intentions: Contributions from
technology and trust perspectives. European Journal of Infor-
mation Systems, 12(1), 41–48.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the
technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.
Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003).
User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified
view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Venkatraman, N. (1990). Performance implications of strategic
coalignment: A methodological perspective. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 27(1), 19–41.
Wallace, L. G., & Sheetz, S. D. (2014). The adoption of software
measures: A technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective.
Information and Management, 51(2), 249–259. doi:10.1016/j.im.
2013.12.003.
Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the
extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communications
Monographs, 61(2), 113–134.
Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence.
Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 539–570.
Yoon, C. (2011). Theory of planned behavior and ethics theory in
digital piracy: An integrated model. Journal of Business Ethics,
100(3), 405–417.
Zhou, L., Zhang, P., & Zimmermann, H.-D. (2013). Social commerce
research: An integrated view. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 12(2), 61–68.
123