The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1754-2731.htm

Understanding the relationship of User’s self-

service
self-service technology quality technology
adoption
with user adoption
using SSTQUAL 293
Manimay Ghosh Received 3 January 2020
Revised 10 April 2020
Department of Operations Management, Xavier Institute of Management, 30 May 2020
Bhubaneswar, India Accepted 13 July 2020

Abstract
Purpose – The study aimed to examine the antecedents to self-service technology (SST) adoption behavior
and the relationships between the constructs using empirical research.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on synthesis of the extant literature, a model was hypothesized,
hypotheses were framed. Field data collected were analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Findings – Few interesting findings were noted in this research. First, SST service quality had a direct positive
linkage with perceived value, but no linkage with e-satisfaction. Second, strong positive linkage existed
between perceived value and e-satisfaction. Therefore, the connection between SST service quality and
satisfaction was completely mediated by perceived value. Third, no relationship existed between perceived
value and behavioral intentions, but a direct positive relationship existed between e-satisfaction and behavioral
intentions. Thus, the relationship of perceived value with behavioral intentions was fully mediated by e-
satisfaction. Fourth, no direct connection was found between SST service quality and behavioral intentions.
Rather, the connection was fully mediated by perceived value and e-satisfaction. Fifth, direct positive
association was found between behavioral intentions and actual adoption of SST.
Research limitations/implications – This empirical research was conducted primarily on the young
population.
Practical implications – The study will benefit managers in making better decisions on how to make SST
work successfully for their organizations.
Originality/value – First, this research further refined the SST adoption process of a customer, thus making a
meaningful contribution to the literature on SST. Second, the research validated SSTQUAL scale in a different
geographical setting.
Keywords SST service quality, Self-service technology, Service operations
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The usage of self-service technology (SST) in service transactions has gained immense
popularity in the last two decades. SST involves use of mobile phones, laptops or self-service
kiosks facilitated by Internet that enables a customer to transact online without any
involvement of direct service employee (Gummerus et al., 2019; Wang, 2012; Lin and Hsieh,
2011, 2006; Meuter et al., 2000). Service industry that involves high-touch points such as
healthcare is not so amenable to the use of SST, but there are many other areas of service
sector such as retail or banking that can deploy this technology primarily to reduce costs and
gain competitive advantage in the marketplace. In such sectors, many business owners are
made to believe that saving labor costs through mechanization can directly lead to increased
profits. They also realize that switching to machines from labor will also reduce errors that
create customer dissatisfaction. From customers’ perspective, use of SST gives customers the
convenience of place and time. Stated differently, the customer does not need to visit a The TQM Journal
physical store and waste valuable time standing in a queue to conduct a transaction. Vol. 33 No. 2, 2021
pp. 293-314
Everything is made available by clicking a few buttons on the virtual/physical keyboard © Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
(Fitzsimmons et al., 2018) with any device, anywhere. The future service landscape foretells DOI 10.1108/TQM-12-2019-0291
TQM that low wage, unskilled and non-value-added service jobs are more likely to vanish with
33,2 more usage of SST (Fitzsimmons et al., 2018). Furthermore, the burgeoning growth of SST in
many service transactions has also happened due to relentless innovations in technology
(Gummerus et al., 2019; Bitner et al., 2000; Dabholkar, 1996). In sum, both firms and their
customers are using SST to achieve higher speed, improved efficiency, reduced cost, maintain
service consistency, convenience and improved processes (Wu and Wu, 2019; Orel and Kara,
2014; Lin and Hsieh, 2011).
294 Abundant research has happened in the last two decades on new technology adoption in
improving service quality and how it has impacted customer’s perceived value (PV),
satisfaction, behavioral intentions and actual behavior. SST quality has gained a lot of
attention from academia and industry. Some (Iqbal et al., 2018; Boon-itt, 2015; Wang, 2012; Lin
and Hsieh, 2011, 2006; Chen et al., 2009; Liljander et al., 2006; Bitner et al., 2000) have
researched this topic with renewed interest. However, prior research did not provide any
definitive framework on how SST quality influenced the PV, satisfaction and behavioral
intention of the customers.
Therefore, this research makes two important contributions. First, it attempts to validate
the SSTQUAL scale in a different geographical setting and culture, thus enhancing its
generalizability across cultures. Second, much of the research literature on SST adoption has
largely remained inconclusive on customers’ SST adoption process. This research
hypothesizes a comprehensive model connecting the overall SST service quality with SST
adoption. Consequently, it examines all the direct relationships of SST service quality with
other constructs, namely PV, e-satisfaction, behavioral intentions and actual behavior. By
doing so, it aims to bridge the gap in the research literature by providing a conceptual
framework on how SST service quality influences continued SST usage by customers.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the related
literature review and hypotheses. Following the literature review section, the research
methodology section is presented. Next, the results are detailed and analyzed. Later the
managerial implications are outlined. The final section narrates the limitations of this
research and some future research directions.

2. Literature review
The emergence of SST as a tool to transact in a service environment did not happen
overnight. In the latter part of the 20th century, most developed nations observed significant
growth of the service sector (Heineke and Davis, 2007). Traditionally, all service encounters
happened with a service employee and a customer being physically present (Bitner et al.,
2000). Abundant literature examined the service quality of face-to-face interaction in service
and retail settings. Service quality in such interaction is defined as the comparison of
expectations to perceptions regarding the service interaction. The customer is satisfied when
perception exceeds expectation after the actual service delivery (Hoffman and Bateson, 2007).
The most notable instrument in the non-Internet-based customer interaction was
SERVQUAL, developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), which uses a 22-item instrument, to
examine service quality in a retail setting.
Firms that started their operations in manual mode soon realized that to remain cost
competitive in the marketplace, they needed to engage their customers to coproduce the
service. Hence, a stream of research emerged reinforcing the idea (Ranjan and Read, 2019;
Gummerus et al., 2019; Kristensson, 2019; Yu and Sangiorgi, 2018; Sembada, 2018; Vargo and
Lusch, 2004; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Bendapudi and Leone, 2003; Bateson, 1985;
Lovelock and Young, 1979; Chase, 1978) and gained momentum with the advancement of
technology (Gummerus et al., 2019). Customers themselves found they were in control of the
service delivery process, had freedom (no waiting, no crowd, no interaction with sales
personnel) of shopping anytime anywhere and had fun (impulsive, drawn in) while ordering User’s self-
(Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001). However, initial websites developed were fraught with a service
multitude of problems – incomplete transactions, late deliveries or no deliveries,
inaccessibility to information and so forth (Zeithaml et al., 2002; Collier and Bienstock,
technology
2006), leading to customer dissatisfaction. adoption
To make the web-ordering processes trouble-free and seamless to the customers, firms
investigated the possibility of checking the quality of their websites. Over the last
two decades, a large body of research focused on developing and examining various Internet- 295
based scales to measure website service quality (Ding et al., 2011; Parasuraman et al., 2005;
Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2003; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Zeithaml et al., 2000).
Thus, a gradual shift happened over two decades from face-to-face direct interaction to
technology-based service interactions. A series of theoretical models explains below the
technology adoption process of a user from various perspectives.

2.1 Theoretical models

Much of the work on technology adoption in business-to-customer (B2C) e-commerce services
over the last two decades is grounded primarily in several theoretical models. Most notable
are the theory of reasoned action (TRA), technology acceptance model (TAM), expectation-
confirmation theory (ECT) and customer relationship model (CRM). Over the years, a few
more adapted versions of the notable ones appeared in the literature. TRA proposed by
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), being very generic in nature, found wide acceptance in various
domains. The primary reason being its ability to predict and explain human behavior. TRA
postulates that behavioral intention is a major determinant of a specified behavior of an
individual. As Ajzen and Fishbein put it “designed to explain virtually any human behavior”
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980, p. 4).
TAM conceptualized by Davis (1986) is an adaptation of TRA specifically meant for
understanding individual’s acceptance of an information system (Davis et al., 1989). TAM
posits that “perceived usefulness” and “perceived ease of use” drive behavioral intention to
use, which in turn is linked to actual use of the system.
TAM primarily is an information system perspective explaining adoption behavior. A third
perspective that emerged in the consumer-behavior literature is expectation-confirmation
theory or ECT (Oliver, 1980). ECT theorizes that satisfaction is the primary determinant of
product or service continuance. When an individual’s actual experience of a service after
delivery exceeds the initial expectations prior to its offering, confirmation to satisfaction
happens, else not. This concept is akin to the satisfaction with any service quality.
A fourth viewpoint that emerged in the literature is the CRM model, which is identical to
the service profit logic (Heskett et al., 2008; Gr€onroos, 2007) of driving business. As Internet
started reigning the global marketplace and became the order of the day, more and more firms
including the business-to-business e-commerce services started switching to CRM model,
which focuses on reducing internal functional inefficiencies to improve customers’ perceived
quality and satisfaction, their retention and eventually their loyalty (Bhattacherjee, 2001).
Thus, each of the aforesaid models contributed immensely to understand the customer
adoption process of technologies. It is beyond the scope of this study to review all variables
considered in all these models. Instead, the focus of this research was on identifying few key
variables of interest from literature to explain how SST service quality perception of a user
leads to continued usage of SST in the B2C context.

2.2 SST adoption process

Observing the rapid growth of B2C services in service transactions, a body of research
appeared in the literature that measured the service quality of SST in B2C contexts for sectors
TQM such as retail, banking, aviation (Boon-itt, 2015; Orel and Kara, 2014; Wang, 2012; Lin and
33,2 Hsieh, 2011, 2006; Chen et al., 2009; Liljander et al., 2006).
Meuter et al. (2000) defined SSTs as “technology interfaces which allow customers to get
services free from direct involvement of service firm’s employees.” SSTs in this research refer
to company-controlled SSTs where the service provider operates and manages the interface.
The customer may operate the technology from a distance or be physically present in front of
the machine (Gummerus et al., 2019). It is often considered as anywhere-anytime (24/7) service
296 that is machine-assisted such as self-check in or picking up boarding passes at kiosks in
airports (Liljander et al., 2006) or Internet-facilitated service activities such as online
shopping, online banking, distance learning and so forth (Meuter et al., 2000), and the
applications seem to be endless in the Internet era.
Taking forward the effort of others, Lin and Hsieh (2011) argued that prior studies that
primarily measured service quality of Internet/websites were “insufficient” and “inappropriate”
for measuring integrated SSTs. They contended that the utility and generalizability of such
scales to measure service quality of website and online services had limited relevance for SST
contexts. They maintained that the customization is better achieved through SST than the
conventional method developed earlier. Moreover, accessing a website from any facility, any
device, at any time is better achieved through SST. Therefore, a new scale titled SSTQUAL with
sound psychometric properties was developed by them for measuring SST service quality.
Lin and Hsieh (2011) identified seven dimensions to measure overall SST service quality
(SQSST). They are (1) functionality, (2) enjoyment, (3) security/privacy, (4) assurance, (5)
design, (6) convenience and (7) customization. Functionality refers to functional features of
SSTs. Enjoyment signals to the pleasure users derive by using the SST. Security denotes
safety from external frauds or loss of sensitive information of the user. Assurance aims to
instill confidence in the minds of the users due to the reputation of the service provider. Design
alludes to overall design of the SST service system. Convenience portrays anytime anywhere
accessibility to services, and Customization indicates the degree to which the SST is amenable
to the specific needs of the customer. The research then advanced to examine the direct
relationships between constructs. The first model put forward and examined the direct
relationship between the seven dimensions and SQSST. The second model assessed the
direct linkage between overall SST service quality and customer’s behavioral intentions.
Prior work by Lin and Hsieh (2006) also investigated the relationships between SQSST and
SST satisfaction, SQSST and SST behavioral intentions and SST satisfaction with SST
behavioral intentions. Boon-itt (2015) offered a framework that inquired into the connections
between SQSST and PV, SQSST and e-satisfaction and PV and e-satisfaction. Few important
constructs (SST service quality, PV, satisfaction, behavioral intentions, behavior) thus
emerged from the past studies on e-commerce and SSTs, which are briefly explained with
their associated interrelationships, in the following few sections.
SST service quality (SQSST) – Service quality in a non-Internet-based setting has often
been defined by scholars as the difference between expectation of service (what should have
been offered) and the actual performance of the service offering ( Teas, 1993; Parasuraman,
et al., 1985; Sasser et al., 1978). The most notable instrument being the SERVQUAL model
(Parasuraman et al., 1988) comprising five dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance,
empathy and tangibles that capture customer–server encounter characteristics. Gr€onroos
(1984) defined service quality in terms of functional and technical quality. Gr€onroos (2007,
p. 94), noted service quality as “whatever the customer perceives it to be.” Gr€onroos
maintained that technical specification is the most important attribute of a product or service
and tends to be riskier for a technology-oriented firm. Quality in SST context pertains to how
it relates to the customer PV, e-satisfaction, behavioral intentions and actual usage behavior.
It is already documented that higher levels of service quality drive higher satisfaction (Ding
et al., 2011; Taylor and Hunter, 2002; Cronin et al., 2000). In the context of SST also, higher SST
quality influences higher satisfaction (Lin and Hsieh, 2006) because satisfaction is a User’s self-
postconsumption experience and is related to moods and feelings (Boon-itt, 2015). Literature service
also suggested that higher level of quality has a positive effect on PV (Venkatesh and Davis,
2000). Positive direct linkage between service quality and behavioral intentions was also
technology
noted in the literature (Lin and Hsieh, 2011, 2006; Cronin et al., 2000). adoption
Satisfaction (ESATIS) is described as the degree to which a consumer believes that
possessing a service invokes a positive feeling (Cronin et al., 2000; Rust and Oliver, 1994).
Schneider and White (2004) contended that satisfaction is primarily a judgment made by the 297
customer on how the service offering had impacted emotionally. There is plenty of support in
the quality literature (Orel and Kara, 2014; Hoffman and Bateson, 2007) on higher satisfaction
perceived by the customer when the service delivery surpasses expectations from service.
Thus, higher level of e-satisfaction in Internet-based customer interactions is a precursor to
likelihood of engaging in similar transactions in future, behavioral intentions (Orel and Kara,
2014; Wang, 2012; Liao et al., 2007; Lin and Hsieh, 2006; Bhattacherjee, 2001).
Perceived value (PV) is the overall assessment of the utility of product or service based on
the judgment of customer on what was received against what was paid (Kumar and Reinartz,
2016; Heskett et al., 2008; Hoffman and Bateson, 2007; Cronin et al., 2000; Zeithaml, 1988).
Experts have asserted that the value of a service to a customer is primarily based on the
perception of its quality (Cronin et al., 2000). For a customer, PV is enhanced, and a favorable
attitude is developed only when he/she observes and experiences the benefits (improved
customer experience through updated technology, trouble-free interactions, convenience) of
using superior SST services (Boon-itt, 2015; Ho and Ko, 2008). Academic literature observed a
direct positive linkage between PV and satisfaction in traditional service industries (Cronin
et al., 2000) or e-commerce sector (McDougall and Levesque, 2000) and in SST context as well
(Boon-itt, 2015; Chen et al., 2009; Shamdasani et al., 2008).
Behavioral intentions (BIN) indicate a person’s likelihood of engaging in a behavior
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and is subsequent to satisfaction in ECT (Oliver, 1980). According
to the theory, satisfied SST users will continue to use the technology if they are satisfied, else
not. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), on the other hand, posits that perceived
usefulness is a strong determinant of customers’ use of information systems (Davis et al.,
1989). Two strong determinants – satisfaction and perceived usefulness, if found have
opposing influence on the behavioral intentions, the relative strengths of each determines the
outcome of behavioral intentions of continuance or discontinuance (Bhattacherjee, 2001).
Behavior (BHE) denotes the actual act of the customer during the transaction after the
intent is formed. Zeithaml et al. (1996) indicated that favorable behavioral intentions lead to
customer’s positive word of mouth to others, remaining loyal to the firm and buying more
from it or recommending to others. In Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and Gopi and Ramayah
(2007), behavioral intentions are a precursor to actual usage behavior.
After gaining insights from the past literature on service quality, information systems and
service operations management, the present work attempts to test the direct positive
relationships of SST quality with four other identified constructs (PV, e-satisfaction,
behavioral intentions, behavior). The comprehensive research model is exhibited in Figure 1.
Based on the hypothesized model, the following hypotheses were examined as part of the
research study.

2.3 Hypotheses

H1. SQSST will have a direct and significant positive relationship with PV.
H2. SQSST will have a direct and significant positive relationship with satisfaction.
TQM Functionality
33,2
Convenience

PV
Enjoyment
298
Assurance

SQSST BIN BHE

Design

Security
ESATIS

Figure 1.
Research model Customization

H3. SQSST will have a direct and significant positive relationship with behavioral
intentions.
H4. PV will have a significant positive relationship with satisfaction of customers.
H5. PV will have a significant positive relationship with behavioral intentions.
H6. Satisfaction will have a significant positive relationship with behavioral intentions.
H7. Behavioral intentions will have a significant positive relationship with actual SST
usage behavior.

2.4 Motivation
Much of the research on SSTQUAL has happened primarily in the developed world. However,
there are few exceptions to this observation such as Boon-itt’s (2015) work was in Thailand,
Lin and Hsieh’s (2011; 2006) research, Wang’s (2012) and Chen et al.’s (2009) work were in
Taiwan and Iqbal et al.’s (2018) study in Pakistan. Lin and Hsieh (2011) argued that the degree
of SST adoption may vary across different markets and there is a genuine need to measure
customer expectations of service quality in emerging economies. In a similar vein, others
(Chen et al., 2009; Boon-itt, 2015) felt a similar need for studies on SST service quality and
satisfaction in other countries. Thus, the first goal of this research was to improve the
generalizability of the SSTQUAL scale in other geographical locations with different cultural
backgrounds, and therefore, India was chosen as a worthy country of pursuit, as explained in
the next section. The second goal of this research was to examine the direct relationships that
have been established in the literature that also hold true in an SST context in a developing
economy.
India’s Internet penetration has been very high and increasing by the day. Internet users
in India are likely to reach 627m in 2019 and expected to register double-digit growth
(Economic Times, 2019). According to a recent report by Internet and Mobile Association of
India (IAMAI), India is second to China in terms of Internet users. Two-thirds of the Internet
population in India are daily users. Nine out of ten users accessed the Internet at least once a User’s self-
week, and users between the age of 16 and 29 were the most frequent users (Mandavia, 2019). service
It is, therefore, understandable that the young generation of India is actively seeking SST for
various types of services that had technological interface (telephone/interactive voice
technology
response, online/Internet using laptops or desktop computers, interactive kiosks). Thus, the adoption
young generation was the targeted population for this study. Despite such high levels of
frequent usage of the Internet, limited understanding still exists on this young generation of
SSTs users that explains the antecedents of their actual adoption behavior and the 299
interrelationships among the antecedents. This research employed SSTQUAL to measure the
service quality in an e-retail context.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Research instrument
Almost all the scale items used in the questionnaire were adapted from prior scholarly
research work except one. The seven dimensions comprising multiple items developed by Lin
and Hsieh (2011) were considered to measure SST Quality construct with some minor
adaptations. These scale items formed the bulk of the questions in the questionnaire. In
addition, Perceived Value construct items were drawn from the work of Boon-itt (2015),
E-satisfaction construct items were slightly modified from Lin and Hsieh (2006) and Anderson
et al. (2004). Behavioral Intentions construct items were derived from the work of Lin and
Hsieh (2006) and Cronin et al. (2000) with minor adjustments. Scale items for the construct
customer’s Behavior were developed by the author(s).
A five-point Likert scale (1 5 strongly disagree, 5 5 strongly agree) was used for all the
questions in the instrument, except for the “behavioral intentions” construct where (1 5 very
unlikely, 5 5 very likely). Google forms was used to develop the web-based questionnaire.
Since the initial questionnaire drawn from literature was being tested in a different
geographical setting, it was once again reviewed by two marketing professors, two
information systems professors and a senior IT administrator of a university for face and
content validity. Minor corrections were made considering the changed setting. All efforts
were made to ensure clarity in the wordings and that each question was short, simple to
understand and addressed a single issue. Two graduate students of the university with
significant industry experience in information technology and SST were also asked to review
the questionnaire beforehand to prevent any ambiguity that may arise when the survey is
finally launched to the young adult population. A final set of 37 candidate items were retained
excluding seven questions on demographic data as shown in Table A1.

3.2 Data collection

A field survey was conducted for this research from June until September 2019. The unit of
analysis was the young adult population of eastern India who may use SST of any service
provider of their choice for e-retailing (B2C e-commerce). Young generation customers are
open-minded and are more inclined to use SSTs for shopping to save time and effort. It was
assumed that this group of customers would have more knowledge and experience of using
SSTs than the general population. The SSTs used by the customers for the present research
were primarily machine-enabled (kiosks) in retail stores or Internet-facilitated devices (mobile
apps/laptops/tablets) for ordering retail items.
A survey questionnaire was created in Google Forms. A covering letter indicating the
need for the study was also developed. The letter containing the link to the online survey
questionnaire was randomly sent by emails (source: student databases) to students pursuing
studies in various colleges/universities in eastern India. The questionnaire was also sent at
random to the recent pass-outs who just completed their college education (bachelor’s or
TQM master’s) and have started working professionally in industry for the last 3–5 years. The
33,2 respondents were anonymous and their participation in the survey was voluntary. Many
scholars (Ding et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2009; Yen, 2005; Yoo and Donthu, 2001) have noted that
college students are the most active online buyers and have considered them as their study
respondents.
To prevent any missing data later, the questionnaire form was designed in such a way that
a respondent had to answer all questions before final submission. At the end, 330 useable
300 anonymous responses were received for an approximate response rate of 32%.

4. Data analysis and results

The web response sheet was downloaded as an Excel sheet and then transported to SPSS
version 20 statistical software for further data analysis. As expected, there were no missing
data. Table 1 presents the details of the respondents. Maximum number (317) out of 330 were
in the 20–34 age group. Gender composition shows 61.5% males and 38.5% females. Most
respondents held college/university degrees (99.1%). Occupation-wise, 83.6% were students
and 15.6% were working professionals. Approximately 63.6% of the respondents had
patronized SST for more than one year, which included 52.1% that had used more than two
years demonstrating some experience in SST for e-tailing. In terms of usage frequency, 42.1%
had interacted with SST more than five times a month for e-tailing, indicating significant
familiarity with the technology.
The adapted scale comprising 24 candidate items for SQSST construct with seven
preidentified dimensions (Lin and Hsieh, 2011, 2006) was tested for loading using principal
component analysis. In this case, six items loaded less than 0.5 on any dimension and
therefore, were eliminated from further analysis. Experts (Hair, et al., 2013) posit that factor
loadings greater than ±0.50 are considered necessary for practical significance. All the other
18 items of the scale loaded reasonably well on various dimensions. The scale was rechecked
for cross-loading after elimination. In sum, six dimensions comprising Functionality, Security,
Design, Convenience, Enjoyment, Customization formed the final scale for measuring overall
SST service quality emerged. Two items measuring “Assurance” cross-loaded and therefore,
eliminated. Table 2 presents the dimensions of SQSST construct, the items in each dimension
and their respective factor loadings. The six dimensions retained with eigenvalues greater
than 1 accounted for 69.94% of total variance in the overall SST service quality.
The Cronbach’s α values for three of the six dimensions of SQSST construct were found to
be well above the threshold value of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) and the remaining
three, Convenience, Enjoyment and Customization, slightly below 0.7 presumably because of
fewer items. The corrected item-to-total correlation was computed and found to be greater
than 0.3, which is the minimum value for an item for inclusion in a scale.
The Bartlett test of sphericity, a statistical test for the presence of correlation among
variables (Hair et al., 2013), was found to be significant (approx. Chi-square 5 2587.02,
significance at p < 0.001).
All survey research instruments are prone to common method variance (CMV) problems
when a respondent responds to all items in the measurement scale (Chang et al., 2010). In such
situations, all items lead to a single factor (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). To check such
problems, Harman’s one-factor test was carried out on the data set. In the SPSS software
package, such analysis is done with no rotation and restraining the number of factors to 1.
Analysis revealed 38.86% of the total variance was explained by one factor, which was far
less than the threshold value of 50%, indicating CMV was not a major issue for the study.
The construct validity of the SQSST scale for all the six dimensions was checked by
finding the standardized factor loadings of each measured item, the variance extracted and
the construct reliability. The standardized factor loading of each item for a dimension
 Respondents
User’s self-
Characteristics Frequency Percent service
technology
Gender
Male 203 61.5 adoption
Female 127 38.5
Age 301
Less than 20 years 1 0.3
20–34 years 317 96.1
35–50 years 9 2.7
Greater than 50 years 3 0.9
Education
High school or less
College 2 0.6
Bachelor’s 101 30.6
Master’s 226 68.5
Doctoral
Others 1 0.3
Occupation
Student 276 83.6
Service 52 15.8
Business 1 0.3
Self-employed 1 0.3
Retiree
Others
Monthly income
Less than Rs 20,000 234 70.9
Rs 21,000–Rs 30,000 12 3.6
Rs 31,000–Rs 40,000 22 6.7
Rs 41,000–Rs 50,000 13 3.9
Greater than Rs 50,000 49 14.8
Duration of SST use
Less than 6 months 85 25.8
6 months–12 months 35 10.6
12 months–Less than 24 months 38 11.5
Greater than 24 months 172 52.1
Frequency of SST use
4 or less times a month 191 57.9
5–8 times a month 78 23.6 Table 1.
9–12 times a month 27 8.2 Sample’s demographic
13 or more times a month 34 10.3 characteristics

exceeded the minimum value of 0.5 as suggested by Hair et al. (2013). The variance extracted
for three dimensions (Convenience, Design and Security) was above the threshold value of
0.50 (Hair et al., 2013) and three fell slightly below and varied between 0.43 and 0.48. Construct
reliability for four dimensions (Functionality, Convenience, Design and Security) exceeded
0.7, the cutoff value indicating adequate reliability (Hair et al., 2013), and two dimensions –
Enjoyment and Customization had CR values 0.63 and 0.69, respectively, slightly below
0.70. Table 3 presents the data.
The discriminant validity measures the degree to which constructs are different from each
other in the scale. It is an indicator of the uniqueness of each construct in a scale. Hair et al. (2013)
TQM Factor Functionality Convenience Enjoyment Security Design Customization
33,2
Functionality (Cronbach’s α 5 0.77)
FUNC1 0.78
FUNC2 0.73
FUNC3 0.63
FUNC4 0.65
302 Convenience (Cronbach’s α 5 0.69)
CON2 0.72
CON3 0.63
Enjoyment (Cronbach’s α 5 0.68)
ENJ3 0.76
ENJ4 0.68
Security (Cronbach’s α 5 0.84)
SEC1 0.83
SEC2 0.82
SEC3 0.73
SEC4 0.72
Design (Cronbach’s α 5 0.80)
DES1 0.75
DES2 0.75
DES3 0.67
Customization (Cronbach’s α 5 0.70)
CUST1 0.64
CUST2 0.67
Table 2. CUST3 0.57
Factor loadings Note(s): Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser
for SQSST Normalization

FUNC CON ENJ DES SEC CUST

FUNC 0.78
CON 0.76
ENJ 0.61
DES 0.81
SEC 0.84
Table 3. CUST 0.67
Standardized factor AVE 0.48 0.63 0.46 0.59 0.63 0.43
loadings, AVE and CR 0.78 0.77 0.63 0.81 0.87 0.69
reliability estimates Note(s): Model Fit: χ 2 5 173.4, χ 2/df 5 1.44, df 5 120, GFI 5 0.94, AGFI 5 0.92, CFI 5 0.85, RMSEA 5 0.04

suggested that estimated variance values of any two constructs should be greater than the
squared correlation estimate between them. In this case, 15 such pairs were examined. The VE
estimates for any pair of constructs were found greater than the squared correlations between
them pointing to fulfillment of discriminant validity requirement. Table 4 depicts the
correlations.
Table 5 indicates the mean values and standard deviation for each dimension of SQSST
and the other research constructs used in the instrument:
 Apart from the SQSST construct, the Cronbach’s α values for the other research User’s self-
constructs – Perceived Value, E-Satisfaction, Behavioral Intentions and Actual Behavior were service
found to be 0.85, 0.78, 0.88 and 0.69, respectively, thus meeting the threshold value of 0.70
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
technology
adoption
4.1 Structural equation modeling
The validity of the revised framework was tested by developing a structural model using 303
AMOS 20 software (Figure 2). One of the aims of developing the model was to examine the
relationships among the research constructs. With SQSST being a higher-order construct, the
average values of the summated scale were used. For all other constructs, such as PV, e-
satisfaction, behavioral intentions and behavior, the scale items served as indicator variables.
The χ 2 value of 275.19 to degrees of freedom 108 ratio was found to be 2.55, which is less than
3:1 for better fitting models (Hair et al., 2013) and therefore, acceptable. In general, NFI, TLI,
CFI values were greater than 0.9, indicating a good model fit with the observed data (Hair
et al., 2013). Table 6 presents the fit indices. The model showed three insignificant
relationships (SST service quality → e-satisfaction, SST service quality → behavioral
intentions, perceived value → behavioral intentions), which were surprising and therefore,
warranted further analysis.

4.2 Mediation analysis

As can be seen from Table 7 and Figure 2, certain direct links such as the direct effect of SST
service quality on e-satisfaction were found to be nonsignificant in the path model. To
investigate further, mediation analysis was done. Mediating effect is formed when a third

Dimensions FUNC CON ENJ DES SEC CUST

FUNC 1.00 0.58** 0.44** 0.52** 0.30** 0.40**

CON 1.00 0.46** 0.60** 0.34** 0.47**
ENJ 1.00 0.57** 0.46** 0.52**
DES 1.00 0.41** 0.54** Table 4.
SEC 1.00 0.54** Correlations between
CUST 1.00 dimensions of SQSST
Note(s): **p < 0.01 construct

Constructs Mean Standard Deviation

SQSST
Functionality 3.88 0.63
Convenience 3.88 0.80
Enjoyment 3.65 0.70
Design 3.86 0.66
Security 3.30 0.83
Customization 3.50 0.66
Perceived value 3.88 0.64
E-Satisfaction 3.70 0.63
Behavioral intentions 3.98 0.75
Behavior 3.89 0.70 Table 5.
Note(s): N 5 330 Descriptive statistics
TQM FUNC
33,2
R2 = 0.9
CON
PV

304 ENJ R2 = 0.53 R2 = 0.38

0.13ns BIN 0.61***
SQSST BHE
0.78**
DES

SEC ESATIS
R2 = 0.89

CUST

Note(s): *p-value < 0.05; **p-value < 0.01; ***p-value < 0.001
Figure 2.
Path model
SQSST - self-service technology service quality; ESATIS - satisfaction with self-service
technology; PV - perceived value; BIN - behavioral intentions; BHE - behavior (actual)

Chi-Square (χ 2) 275.19
Degree of freedom 108
Chi-square/df 2.55
Goodness-of-fit indices (GFI) 0.92
Root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) 0.07
Table 6. Normed fit index (NFI) 0.92
Absolute and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) 0.94
incremental fit indices Comparative fit index (CFI) 0.95

Standardized coefficients
Hypothesis Direct impact Indirect impact Hypothesis supported

H1: SQSST→PV 0.95*** 0.00 Yes

H2: SQSST→ESATIS 0.17ns 0.74 No
H3: SQSST→BIN 0.13ns 0.55 No
H4: PV→ESATIS 0.78** 0.00 Yes
ns
H5: PV→BIN 0.04 0.44 No
H6: ESATIS→BIN 0.57* 0.00 Yes
Table 7. H7: BIN→BHE 0.61*** 0.00 Yes
Hypotheses, direct and Note(s): ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01; *p < 0.1; ns - not significant; SQSST: self-service technology service quality;
indirect impacts with ESATIS: satisfaction with self-service technology; PV: perceived value; BIN: behavioral intentions; BHE:
significance behavior (actual)

variable intervenes between two other constructs (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In this case, PV
intervened between SST service quality (SQSST) and e-satisfaction (ESATIS). Initially, linear
regression analysis was done between SQSST and ESATIS (β 5 0.77, p < 0.001). Then,
regression analysis between SQSST and PV was conducted (β 5 0.79, p < 0.001). Next,
regression was carried out with PV and e-satisfaction (β 5 0.80, p < 0.001). Finally, when both User’s self-
SQSST and PV were regressed on ESATIS, the significance of SQSST on satisfaction got service
attenuated (β 5 0.37, p < 0.001). The regression results are indicated in Table 8. To
investigate further on the mediation effect, the unstandardized coefficients and standard
technology
errors obtained were plugged in the formula for Sobel’s test, a measure of mediation (Sobel, adoption
1982) to calculate Z-value. Z statistic found was 17.11 (p < 0.001). The results indicated that by
considering PV as the mediator, the direct effect of SQSST on ESATIS was significantly
reduced and with no significance, as seen in the path diagram of the whole model, thus, 305
confirmed full mediation. Figure 3 and Figure 4 clearly depict the effect of mediation.
Similarly, the direct effect of SQSST on behavioral intentions was found to be
nonsignificant as depicted in Figure 2. To test mediation on behavioral intentions, a
similar exercise was carried out. Even though the direct effect of SQSST on behavioral
intentions was found to be significant (β 5 0.53, p < 0.001), the direct relationship lost its
significance when all other constructs were considered in the full model indicating similar full
mediating effect on behavioral intentions. To test further, three sets of constructs were
considered for mediation analysis separately. In the first case, SQSST was considered as the
predictor variable, PV as the mediating variable and BIN as the outcome variable. Sobel’s
Z-statistic was found to be 11.62 (p < 0.001). In the second case, PV was considered as the

IV DV Adj R2 β With significance F-value Significance

SQSST ESATIS 0.59 0.77*** 484.01 0.000 Table 8.

SQSST PV 0.63 0.79*** 564.78 0.000 Regression analyses on
PV ESATIS 0.64 0.80*** 586.06 0.000 select constructs for
Note(s): ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.1 mediation

0.53
e1 FUNC

0.58
e2 CON 0.73

0.76
0.45
e3 ENJ 0.67
0.11
SQSST
0.17 –0.10 0.75
0.57
e4 DES 0.59 0.92

0.35 0.70 0.84

e5 SEC
D2 ESATIS
0.21
0.49 0.85
0.82
e6 CUST
0.67 0.72
ESAT2 ESAT3
Figure 3.
Path diagram for
SQSST with ESATIS
e11 e12
TQM e7 e8 e9
33,2
0.70 0.77 0.59
PER1 PER2 PER3

0.55 0.84 0.88 0.77

306 e1 FUNC
0.89

0.57 D1 PV
e2 CON 0.74

0.75 0.94
0.45
e3 ENJ 0.67
0.11 SQSST
0.75
0.16 –0.07 0.77
0.59
e4 DES 0.60 0.22

0.36 0.71 0.91

e5 SEC
D2 ESATIS
0.22
0.50
0.85
0.82
e6 CUST
0.66 0.72
Figure 4. ESAT2 ESAT3
Path diagram of
SQSST with ESATIS
and PV
e11 e12

predictor variable, BIN as outcome variable and ESATIS as the mediating variable. Sobel’s
Z-statistic found was 10.23 (p < 0.001). In the third case, SQSST was considered as predictor
variable, ESATIS as mediating variable and BIN as outcome variable. Sobel’s Z-statistic was
found to be 10.174 (p < 0.001). All the Z-statistic values pointed toward full mediating effect of
two constructs – ESATIS and PV on behavioral intentions.

5. Discussion
The first goal of this SST research was to test the SSTQUAL scale in a different geographical
setting and culture, thus improving the generalizability of the SSTQUAL scale. Scholars
(Singhal et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2009) have encouraged similar studies with different data set
to enhance understanding of an operation or a quality phenomenon.
The second goal of the research was to test the relationships among the model constructs
using a comprehensive model. Much of the SST research literature had primarily focused
only on direct positive interrelationships among the constructs. Not all theoretically identified
relationships from prior research were confirmed in this research. Orel and Kara (2014)
argued that cross-cultural research can be very valuable in theory development when testing
relationships among constructs in a culturally different market environment. Furthermore,
extant research on SST remained silent on a definitive framework on the SST adoption
process. This research bridged that gap by providing a conceptual understanding of the SST
adoption process, albeit in an Indian context.
 The study found a significant and direct positive relationship of SQSST and PV, which User’s self-
agreed with the research findings of prior research (Boon-itt, 2015). Boon-itt’s study in the service
digital banking context found SST service quality to be a strong predictor of PV.
This research noted no direct relationship between SST service quality and e-satisfaction.
technology
It was somewhat surprising because the common logic is high self-service technology quality adoption
should drive satisfaction (Orel and Kara, 2014; Lin and Hsieh, 2006). In this research, the
relationship between SST service quality and e-satisfaction was fully mediated by PV. PV
was a trigger for customer satisfaction. In a technology-intensive setting, higher PV was 307
achieved when the customer (in this case young generation customers) experienced the real
benefits of the technology – improved customer experience through updated technology,
trouble-free interactions, speed of service, ease of finding what one was looking for and
convenience. The customer felt that use of the technology indeed evoked a positive feeling – a
manifestation of “satisfaction” with the service provided. Perceived usefulness strongly
influenced customer’s satisfaction and eventually, intentions to use the SST again. By
studying various service sector firms, Heskett et al. (2008) observed that it is the PV realized
by the customer that largely drives the satisfaction. Satisfaction, they showed, is a sequel to
PV. They maintained that customers are value-oriented and compared the benefits in
relations to the cost they incurred. Therefore, this finding of the study was in accordance with
Heskett et al. (2008). Hence, SST service quality influenced satisfaction in an indirect way
(SST quality → perceived value → satisfaction).
The past literature (Wang, 2012; Bhattacherjee, 2001; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Davis
et al., 1989) reported a direct linkage between PV and behavioral intentions, which was not
supported in this research and therefore, intriguing. Instead, this empirical research showed
e-satisfaction fully mediating the relationship between PV and behavioral intentions. As
explained in the preceding paragraph, perceived usefulness of a technology elicited a positive
feeling in the mind of the customer that eventually stimulated to reuse SST. Bhattacherjee
(2001) contended that when PV and satisfaction are both determinants of behavioral
intentions, the stronger of the two influences it. In this case, the path coefficient of
e-satisfaction was higher than PV and hence, fully mediated the PV’s direct effect on
behavioral intentions. Thus, findings of the prior literature were supported. In this case,
indirect link was observed (perceived value → e-satisfaction → behavioral intentions).
The observation of significant positive association of e-satisfaction and behavioral
intentions found in this research supported the ECT theory and attested the work of others
(Chen et al., 2009; Liao et al., 2007; Lin and Hsieh, 2006).
SST service quality’s direct link to behavioral intentions was recorded (Lin and Hsieh,
2011, 2006) earlier, yet the findings from this research refuted such observation. This research
observed no such direct relationship primarily because of the full mediating effects of two
other constructs: PV and e-satisfaction. In fact, these two constructs completely
overshadowed that direct link. PV (in this case, the convenience of using the technology)
being experiential was readily fathomable by the customer, which in turn influenced
satisfaction and then behavioral intentions. This finding is in accordance with prior studies
that reported service quality influences behavioral intentions through service value and
satisfaction (Cronin et al., 2000; Patterson and Spreng, 1997).
Consistent with earlier research (Gopi and Ramayah, 2007; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000),
the direct and positive association of behavioral intentions and behavior (actual) was
recorded in this research.
This research thus refines the linkages among the constructs on how SST service quality
drives actual usage of SST: SST service quality → perceived value → e-satisfaction →
behavioral intentions → behavior (actual). In technology-oriented firms, such as those offering
SST platforms for business transactions, technical quality plays a dominant role in
influencing the PV of the customers. Higher PV is achieved when customers observe and
TQM experience benefits such as updated SST apps that are trouble-free to carry out business
33,2 transactions. Enhanced PV drives customer satisfaction, which in turn acts an antecedent to
behavioral intentions to use the technology. Behavioral intentions drive the customer to use
the technology for repeat purchases of goods and services. The model outlined in this
research clearly depicts the SST adoption process of a customer. The findings of this research
were in congruence with the value-alignment framework offered by Kumar and Reinartz
(2016) or “The Satisfaction Model” propounded by Cronin et al. (2000). Other researchers have
308 also endorsed the same viewpoint that PV leads to customer satisfaction, which in turn drives
future customer engagement (Dovaliene et al., 2015; Hollebeek, 2013; Chen et al., 2009).

6. Managerial implications
This research found young generation including time-strapped working professionals think
that SSTs can truly help them buy merchandise online conveniently without interacting
physically with the service providers. As customers become more proficient with the
advancements in technology, proactive involvement of the customer in codesigning and
cocreation of services becomes increasingly important to many firms to reduce labor costs,
improve efficiency, productivity and market dominance. According to some scholars,
cocreation of services positively influences customer experience and engagement (Sembada,
2018; Zhang et al., 2018). The use of various self-service technologies has thus created the
opportunity for many tech-savvy customers to explore more self-service options, thus
opening new ways to coproduce service electronically.
Furthermore, customer engagement in services can potentially play a very important role
in building a strong and sustainable business relationship (Dovaliene et al., 2015; Vivek et al.,
2012; Kumar et al., 2010; Brodie and Hollebeek, 2011). Research studies have explored the
relationships among the three constructs: customer engagement, PV and satisfaction and
found that customer PV drives customer satisfaction, which in turn drives sustainable
customer relationships (Dovaliene et al., 2015; Revels et al., 2010). Usually, customers perceive
better value when they experience four dimensions of customer value, namely functional,
social, emotional and epistemic. Functional value relates to the usefulness in terms of function,
quality and reliability. Social value caters to connectedness or network benefits. Emotional
value relates to fun, pleasure, excitement, joy and so on, and epistemic value refers to new
content, new services, learning new ways of doing things (Dovaliene et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
2013). With the emergence of new features or new apps in SSTs coproduced by customers and
service providers, customers can derive higher levels of PV and a sustainable relationship.
As espoused by other scholars, the findings of this research endorsed the same viewpoint
of enhancing PV of the customers to accept future technologies. Higher PV drives higher
satisfaction, which then becomes antecedent to positive behavioral intentions and eventually
to continued usage of technology. This empirical research found tech-savvy young
generation to be the most active users of SST. Therefore, marketers and operational
personnel of service firms need to put in a lot of effort to jointly cocreate value-added services
to enhance customers’ PV.

7. Limitations and future research

Like any other research study, this empirical work does have some limitations. First, the
study was conducted on the young population and not on other categories of users who could
have also been considered. Second, the study was done in eastern India, and therefore, caution
should be exercised to generalize the findings to other contexts. Third, a single questionnaire
was used to measure all constructs in the scale, and therefore, the possibility of CMV issues
cannot be ruled out. Fourth, the effect of subjective norm was not examined in this research
although some researchers (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) have argued that friends and family User’s self-
members could have a significant influence on customer’s behavioral intent and actual service
behavior. Fifth, this research considered five variables of interest for study, which is not
exhaustive, and therefore, results need to be considered with caution. Some other causal
technology
determinants ignored in this research could have provided even more explanatory power of adoption
SST usage behavior.
Finally, this research, as stated before, focused primarily on firm-controlled and -managed
self-service technologies. Scholars (Gummerus et al., 2019; Kristensson, 2019) predict use of 309
SSTs such as robotics, Internet of things, artificial intelligence and the like, which will hugely
impact service practice and therefore, open more and more emerging areas of research in the
foreseeable future.

References
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Mazvancheryl, S.K. (2004), “Customer satisfaction and shareholder
value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 172-185.
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. (1985), “Self-service consumer: an exploratory study”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61 No. 3,
pp. 49-76.
Bendapudi, N. and Leone, R.P. (2003), “Psychological implications of customer participation in
coproduction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 14-28.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001), “An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service
continuance”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 201-214.
Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W. and Meuter, M.L. (2000), “Technology infusion in service encounters”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 138-149.
Boon-itt, S. (2015), “Managing self-service technology service quality to enhance e- satisfaction”,
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 373-391.
Brodie, R.J. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2011), “Advancing and consolidating knowledge about customer
engagement”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 283-284.
Chang, S.J., Witteloostuijn, A.V. and Eden, L. (2010), “From the editors: common method variance in
international business research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 178-184.
Chase, R.B. (1978), “Where does the customer fit in a service operation?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 137-142.
Chen, S.C., Chen, H.H. and Chen, M.F. (2009), “Determinants of satisfaction and continuance intention
towards self-service technologies”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 9,
pp. 1248-1263.
Collier, J.E. and Bienstock, C.C. (2006), “Measuring service quality in e-retailing”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 260-275.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1996), “Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options: an
investigation of alternative models of service quality”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-51.
TQM Davis, F.D. (1986), “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User
Information Systems: Theory and Results”, Doctoral Dissertation, Sloan School of
33,2 Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Ding, D.X., Hu, P.J.H. and Sheng, O.R.L. (2011), “e-SELFQUAL: a scale for measuring online self-
service quality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 508-515.
310
Dovaliene, A., Masiulyte, A. and Piligrimiene, Z. (2015), “The relations between customer engagement,
perceived value and satisfaction: the case of mobile applications”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 213, pp. 659-664.
Economic Times (2019), “Internet users in India to reach 627 million in 2019: report”, available at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/internet-users-in-india-to-reach-627-million-
in-2019-report/articleshow/68288868.cms?from5mdr (accessed 24 October 2019).
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intentions, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Adison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fitzsimmons, J.A., Fitzsimmons, M.J. and Bordoloi, S.K. (2018), Service Management, Operations,
Strategy, Information Technology, McGraw Hill, Chennai.
Gopi, M. and Ramayah, T. (2007), “Applicability of theory of planned behavior in predicting intentions
to trade online: some evidence from a developing country”, International Journal of Emerging
Markets, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 348-360.
Gr€onroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Gr€onroos, C. (2007), Service Management and Marketing, John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex.
Gummerus, J., Lipkin, M., Dube, A. and Heinonen, K. (2019), “Technology in use – characterizing
customer self-service devices (SSDs)”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 44-56.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2013), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Pearson Education, New Delhi.
Heineke, J. and Davis, M.M. (2007), “The emergence of service operations management as an academic
discipline”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 364-374.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. and Schleisinger, L.A. (2008), “Putting the
service-profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 Nos 7/8, pp. 118-129.
Ho, S. and Ko, Y. (2008), “Effects of self-service technology on customer value and customer readiness:
the case of internet banking”, Internet Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 427-446.
Hoffman, K.D. and Bateson, J.E.G. (2007), Services Marketing: Concepts, Strategies, and Cases,
Thomson South-Western, New Delhi.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2013), “The customer engagement/value interface: an exploratory investigation”,
Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 17-24.
Iqbal, M.S., Hassan, M.U.H. and Habibah, U. (2018), “Impact of self-service technology (SST) service
quality on customer loyalty and behavioral intentions: the mediating role of customer
satisfaction”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 5, pp. 1-23.
Kristensson, P. (2019), “Future service technologies and value creation”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 502-506.
Kumar, V. and Reinartz, W. (2016), “Creating enduring customer value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80
No. 6, pp. 36-68.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T. and Tillmanns, S. (2010), “Undervalued
or overvalued customers: capturing total customer engagement value”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 297-310.
Liao, C., Chen, J.-L. and Yen, D.C. (2007), “Theory of planning behavior (TPB) and customer User’s self-
satisfaction in the continued use of e-service: an integrated model”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 2804-2822. service
Liljander, V., Gillberg, F., Gummerus, J. and Riel, A.v. (2006), “Technology readiness and the
technology
evaluation and adoption of self-service technologies”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer adoption
Services, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 177-191.
Lin, J.-S.C. and Hsieh, P.-L. (2006), “The role of technology readiness in customers’ perception and
adoption of self-service technologies”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 311
Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-517.
Lin, J.-S.C. and Hsieh, P.-L. (2011), “Assessing the self-service technology encounters: development and
validation of SSTQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 194-206.
Lovelock, C.H. and Young, R.F. (1979), “Look to customers to increase productivity”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 168-175.
Mandavia, M. (2019), “India has second highest number of Internet users after China”, available at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/india-has-second-highest-number-of-
internet-users-after-china-eport/articleshow/71311705.cms?from5mdr (accessed 24
October 2019).
McDougall, G.H.G. and Levesque, T. (2000), “Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived
value into the equation”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 392-410.
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.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-469.
Orel, F.D. and Kara, A. (2014), “Supermarket self-checkout service quality, customer satisfaction, and
loyalty: empirical evidence from an emerging market”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 118-129.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “Measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Malhotra, A. (2005), “A multiple-item scale for assessing
electronic service quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 213-233.
Patterson, P.G. and Spreng, R.A. (1997), “Modeling the relationship between perceived value,
satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an empirical
examination”, The International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 415-432.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creating unique value with customers”, Strategy and
Leadership, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 4-9.
Ranjan, K.R. and Read, S. (2019), “Bringing the individual into the co-creation of value”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 904-920.
Revels, J., Tojib, D. and Tsarenko, Y. (2010), “Understanding consumer intention to use mobile
Services”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 74-80.
Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1994), “Service quality: insights and managerial implications from the
frontier”, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and
Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 1-19.
TQM Sasser, W.E., Olsen, P.R. and Wyckoff, D.D. (1978), Management of Service Operations: Text and
Cases, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
33,2
Schneider, B. and White, S.S. (2004), Service Quality: Research Perspectives, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sembada, A. (2018), “The two sides of empowering customers to co-design innovations”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 8-18.
312 Shamdasani, P., Mukherjee, A. and Malhotra, N. (2008), “Antecedents and consequences of service
quality in consumer evaluation of self-service technology internet technologies”, The Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 117-139.
Singhal, V., Flynn, B.B., Ward, P.T., Roth, A.V. and Gaur, V. (2008), “Editorial: empirical elephants—
why multiple methods are essential to quality research in operations and supply chain
management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 337-348.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models”, in Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
pp. 290-312.
Taylor, S.A. and Hunter, G.L. (2002), “The impact of loyalty with e-CRM software and e- service”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 452-474.
Teas, R.K. (1993), “Expectation, performance evaluation, and consumers’ perception of quality”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 18-34.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (2012), “Customer engagement: exploring customer
relationships beyond purchase”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 122-146.
Wang, M.C.H. (2012), “Determinants and consequences of consumer satisfaction with self- service
technology in a retail setting”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 128-144.
Wang, H.Y., Liao, C. and Yang, L.H. (2013), “What affects mobile application use? the roles of
consumption values”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 5 No. 2, p. 11.
Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M.C. (2001), “Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun”, California
Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 34-55.
Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M.C. (2003), “eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring, and predicting etail
quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 183-198.
Wu, C.G. and Wu, P.Y. (2019), “Investigating user continuance intention toward library self- service
technology”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 401-417.
Yen, H.R. (2005), “An attribute-based model of quality satisfaction for internet self-service
technology”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 641-659.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an internet
shopping site (Sitequal)”, Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Yu, E. and Sangiorgi, D. (2018), “Service design as an approach to implement the value cocreation
perspective in new service development”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 40-58.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a conceptual model and
synthesis of research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, L. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2000), A conceptual framework for.understanding, User’s self-
e-service quality: implications for future research and managerial practice”, Working Paper
No. 00-115, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. service
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2002), “Service quality delivery though web sites: a
technology
critical review of extant knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4, adoption
pp. 362-375.
Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torris, E. and Chen, P.J. (2018), “Engaging customers in value co-creation or co-
destruction online”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 57-69. 313

Further reading
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 319-339.

Corresponding author
Manimay Ghosh can be contacted at: mghosh98@gmail.com
TQM
Appendix
33,2

Functionality (FUNC)
FUNC1: I get my service done with the firm’s SST in a short time
FUNC2: Using firm’s SST requires little effort
314 FUNC3: The service process of the firm’s SST is clear
FUNC4: I get my service done smoothly with the firm’s SST
Convenience (CON)
**CON1: The SST has customer service representatives available all the time
CON2: It is easy and convenient to reach the firm’s SST.
CON3: The firm’s SST has convenient operating hours
Enjoyment (ENJ)
**ENJ1: The ease of use of the firm’s SST appears to be good
**ENJ2: I feel good being able to use the firm’s SST
ENJ3: The firm’s SST has interesting additional functions
ENJ4: The firm’s SST provides me with all relevant information
Assurance (ASS)
**ASS1: The firm providing the SST is well known
**ASS2: The firm providing the SST has a good reputation
Design (DES)
DES1: The website of the firm’s SST is aesthetically designed
DES3: The firm appears to use up-to-date technology for developing the website
DES2: My experience of using the website is satisfactory
Security (SEC)
SEC1: I feel like my privacy is protected with the firm’s SST
SEC2: The firm’s SST has adequate security features
SEC3: I feel safe in my transactions with the firm’s SST
SEC4: It does not share my personal information with other website databases
**SEC5: A clear privacy policy is stated when I use the firm’s SST
Customization (CUST)
CUST1: The firm’s SST understands my specific needs
CUST2: The firm’s SST has my best interests at heart
CUST3: The firm’s SST has features that are personalized for me
Perceived Value (PV)
PER1: In general, the overall value I get from using this firm’s SST is worth my time and effort
PER2: The overall convenience of using this site is satisfying
PER3: I value the firm’s SST greatly
E-Satisfaction (ESATIS)
**E-SAT1: The SST services offered by the firm exceed my expectations
E-SAT2: My choice to use the firm’s SST was a wise one
E-SAT3: Overall, I am satisfied by using the firm’s SST
Behavioral Intentions (BIN)
BI1: The probability that I will use SST offered by the firm again
BI2: The probability that I would recommend the SST offered by the firm to a friend
BI3: If I had to do the service transaction over again, I would still use the SST offered by the firm
Customer’s Behavior (BHE)
**BH1: I use SST for all my purchases of goods or goods return, if any
BH2: I use SST for selective purchases
Table A1. BH3: I use SST to compare prices with physical stores items
Items used to measure BH4: I use SST for goods not available in physical stores
research constructs Note(s): ** denotes items deleted in the final scale after EFA
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.