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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-671X.htm

Understanding
QUALITY PAPER customer
A simplified approach to support and
help
understanding customer support
and help during 609
self-service encounters Received 19 June 2019
Revised 12 October 2019
Accepted 16 December 2019
Estelle van Tonder
Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, North-West University,
Potchefstroom, South Africa
Stephen G. Saunders
Department of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, and
Leon T. de Beer
WorkWell Research Unit, North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – In the absence of direct employee involvement, customers sharing knowledge and know-how with
other customers during self-service encounters is key for promoting service quality. This study assessed the
extent to which customer support and help during self-service encounters could simply be explained by
multiple motivations of the social exchange theory.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey approach was followed. The model was tested among 258
electronic banking customers in South Africa and later cross-validated among 253 electronic banking
customers in Australia. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis with country as the grouping variable, latent
variable modelling and indirect tests were performed to assess interrelationships among diverse factors that
may contribute to customer support and help during self-service encounters, as accounted for by motivations of
the social exchange theory.
Findings – Adequate model fit was obtained for the combined structural model, which was based on the
invariant model. Value contribution and competence affirmation, pleasure derived from helping, reciprocity
and reputation enhancement are relevant motivations of the social exchange theory that may impact customer
support and help through knowledge sharing.
Research implications – The study provides a simplified and more cohesive explanation of customers’
motivations for engaging in customer support and helping behaviours during self-service encounters.
Practical implications – Service providers seeking guidance on knowledge sharing among customers,
which may lead to greater service quality, should benefit from this research.
Originality/value – The findings contribute to greater understanding of social exchanges by customers who
provide support and help to other customers during self-service encounters, and that ultimately may affect
service quality.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Motivations, Self-service, Service quality, Social exchange theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction and background

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in customer-to-customer interactions
during service encounters. Scholars have substantiated research in this field with the
assertion that customers supporting each other during service encounters impact on service
quality (Jung et al., 2017, p. 426; Kim and Choi, 2016, p. 384; Kim et al., 2018, p. 463; Luo et al.,
2019, p. 1310; S
a and Amorim, 2017, p. 1184). Service quality concerns “consumers’ overall International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
impression of the relative inferiority or superiority of an organization and its services” Vol. 37 No. 4, 2020
pp. 609-634
(Famiyeh et al., 2018, p. 1547). Service quality may contribute to a competitive advantage for © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
the service provider and can be seen as a viable indicator of organisational performance DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-06-2019-0198
IJQRM (Almutawa et al., 2018; Trabelsi-Zoghlami et al., 2018, p. 1; Idris and Naqshbandi, 2019, p. 181).
37,4 Superior service experiences, denoting service quality, are essential to benefit from customer
satisfaction and loyalty (Fatima and Razzaque, 2014, p. 367; Pattanayak et al., 2017; Famiyeh
et al., 2018, p. 1549; Maghsoodi et al., 2019, p. 1490; Hapsari et al., 2017; Rew et al., 2018, p. 1846).
Of further significance is that the customer-to-customer supporting behaviours are not
restricted to traditional (in-store) services, but are also evident in the self-service environment.
Electronic banking apps and self-check-in kiosks at airports are typical examples of self-
610 services that are increasingly dominating service encounters. In these service settings,
inexperienced customers (being unfamiliar with the self-service process) tend to rely on other
customers for support and help to successfully complete their transactions (Van Tonder et al.,
2018, p. 92; Yi and Kim, 2017, p. 696). Consequently, customer-to-customer supporting
behaviours also seem to be key for promoting service quality in the self-service environment.
Generally, customer support and help by means of knowledge sharing are considered as a
form of customer citizenship, as the help provided is voluntary and does not resonate under
the expected behaviours from customers, such as completing a transaction (Groth, 2005; Yi
and Kim, 2017, p. 696). There is also evidence supporting the notion that motivation for
voluntary behaviours is multidimensional in nature. Various motivational drivers may
simultaneously contribute to customer engagement in voluntary behaviours (Choi and Lotz,
2016, p. 540). Therefore, extensive research has been conducted to identify ideal sets of
motivational drivers that may simultaneously impact on voluntary customer citizenship
behaviours. For instance, research involving customer support and help by means of
knowledge sharing in physical and self-service environments specifically, uncovered
antecedents like other-oriented empathy, helpfulness and proactive personality (Choi and
Hwang, 2019), social influence, perceived responsibility, tie strength (Yi and Kim, 2017), as
well as affective commitment (Choi and Lotz, 2018; Van Tonder et al., 2018), which may be
preceded by post-usage beliefs of the self-service (Van Tonder et al., 2018).
What is further interesting about these earlier investigations is that scholars have primarily
concentrated on individuals in their capacity as “service customers” and examined multiple
theories that may explain motivations of service customers for providing support and help to
other customers by means of knowledge sharing. However, there may also be an alternative,
more simplified approach to explaining this behaviour, which could provide a deeper
understanding of customer support and help and aid in the provision of service quality in the
self-service environment. Specifically, by showing other customers how to use the service,
customers act on behalf of the service provider and can be perceived as “partial employees” of
the service provider (Groth, 2005; Rosenbaum and Massiah, 2007, p. 261). Workplace literature
on employee motivation furthermore considers the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964;
Homans, 1961; Meeker, 1971, p. 485) as “among the most influential conceptual paradigms for
understanding workplace behavior” (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005, p. 874), and has
extensively examined this theory in research predicting employee knowledge sharing in the
workplace (Curtis and Taylor, 2018; Liu et al., 2012). It is argued that the social exchange theory
acknowledges interactions among individuals, such as employees, and that these interactions
generate obligations. The interactions are contingent on the actions of another individual and
therefore interdependence is key for maintaining the social exchange relationship (Blau, 1964;
Chang et al., 2015, p. 868; Choi and Lotz, 2018, p. 609; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Emerson,
1976; Oparaocha, 2016, p. 537). During the social interactions, resources are furthermore
exchanged among individuals, but the exchange will only transpire when the benefits received
are greater than the costs associated with the exchange (Chang et al., 2015, p. 868; Choi and
Lotz, 2018, p. 609; Lin and Lo, 2015, p. 216; Meeker, 1971, p. 485, 490). For example, the
knowledge provided is perceived as the intangible resource, while the time and effort sacrificed
to share knowledge are viewed as the costs incurred. Knowledge will then only be shared if the
benefit of sharing is greater than the cost of time and energy spent on the project.
 Moreover, considering customers’ partial employee role in the workforce of the service Understanding
provider, it could then be argued that these behavioural patterns may similarly emerge when customer
customers provide support and help to other customers interested in using self-services.
Customers may likewise engage in interactions with other customers and share self-service
support and
knowledge, when the perceived benefit of sharing this intangible resource as a “partial help
employee” is greater than the cost of time and energy required on the project. As the customer
receiving help with self-services may further benefit from the knowledge shared, an
interdependent relationship may also be created that is essential for sustaining good social 611
exchange relations (Chang et al., 2015, p. 868). Hence, the social exchange theory may be of
great relevance in the self-service environment as well, when customers, acting as “partial
employees”, voluntarily share their knowledge about self-services with other customers.
Effectively, it is plausible that customer support and help by means of knowledge sharing
during self-service encounters may simply be explained by multiple motivations of the social
exchange theory.
Further research, however, is required to gain clarity on this matter and to provide service
researchers with a better understanding of the multidimensional nature of motivation and the
principles of the social exchange theory that underpin them in the self-service environment.
The social exchange theory has received little attention in customer citizenship research
concerning helping behaviour of self-services (Van Tonder et al., 2018) and a more
comprehensive investigation, involving the extent to which the multiple motivations of this
theory may simultaneously impact on customer support and helping behaviour during self-
service encounters, has not yet been accounted for in academic literature.
Subsequently, against this background, the purpose of this study was to address the
research question concerning the extent to which customer support and help during self-
service encounters could simply be explained by multiple motivations of the social
exchange theory. The study involved an examination of the interrelationships among
potential factors that may contribute to customers supporting and helping other customers
during self-service encounters, as accounted for by relevant motivations of the social
exchange theory. Empirical validation of the proposed relationships was required to
conclude on the research question. As the research context of the study was electronic
banking self-services and the use thereof involved a risk for customers, it was also
necessary to account for the effect that trust in the self-services may have on the proposed
model. Hence, the investigation further included an assessment of the impact of trust on
selected motivational factors and to determine the extent to which this may influence the
research findings. The model was initially tested among respondents in a developing
economy (South Africa) and was later cross-validated among respondents in a developed
economy (Australia).
The research findings contribute to a greater understanding of social exchanges by
customers performing their “partial employee” roles during self-service encounters.
Additionally, the study affords a deeper understanding of customer-to-customer interactions
during self-service encounters and its fundamental principles that may contribute to the
promotion of service quality. From a practical perspective, the insights obtained from South
Africa and Australia should benefit service providers in diverse economies (both developed and
developing), seeking guidance on knowledge sharing among customers, which may lead to
greater service quality. An example would be retail banks, which serve as the context of this
study. A set of factors and associated motivations contributing to customer support and help
may provide strategic guidance for retail banks globally to ensure that customers share their
knowledge and know-how with other customers (such as family and friends or other members
in an online environment) and teach them more about the self-service. Strategies of this nature
are important, considering that customers are unlikely to blame themselves when the self-
service is not performed as expected (Meuter et al., 2000, p. 60). Customers supporting and
IJQRM helping other customers with self-services may contribute to lower service failure rates and
37,4 greater service quality.
The remainder of this article comprises a theoretical discussion providing more insight
into factors that may contribute to customer support and help during self-service encounters
as accounted for by various motivations of the social exchange theory. Proposed
interrelationships of the identified factors are also explored, leading to the formulation of
the research hypotheses. Following an outline of the methodology, the research findings are
612 presented and discussed. The final section addresses the implications of this study for theory
and practice.

Social exchange motivations and factors promoting customer support and help
Individuals may have extrinsic or intrinsic motivations for engaging in social exchange
relationships and sharing their knowledge with others (Deci and Ryan, 1980; Hung et al., 2011,
p. 215). Extrinsic motivation concerns a willingness to perform the act of exchange to obtain
tangible rewards or valuable outcomes from external sources. In contrast, intrinsic
motivation is not dependent on external rewards, but rather the internal satisfaction
gained from performing the act of exchange (Hung et al., 2011, p. 215; Kankanhalli et al., 2005,
p. 116). To aid in addressing the research question, five potential factors were identified from
the literature review that may contribute to customer support and help, as accounted for by
two intrinsic and two extrinsic motivations of the social exchange theory. The factors and
relevant social exchange motivations are depicted in Table I. Informed by the literature
investigation, several research hypotheses were additionally formulated, denoting the
proposed relationships among the factors and customer support and help, as accounted for
by the relevant intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Empirical validation of these hypotheses
was then required to conclude on the motivations of the social exchange theory that may
actually lead to customers supporting and helping other customers with self-services.

Perceived self-efficacy, value contribution and competence affirmation

Perceived self-efficacy is grounded in the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986; Ben-Ami
et al., 2014) and relates to individuals’ assessments of the extent to which they are able to
organise and implement the necessary measures to achieve desired performances (Wang,
2019, p. 244). In other words, perceived self-efficacy refers to “individuals’ beliefs about the
extent to which they have the internal resources, such as ability, talent, knowledge, skill,
resourcefulness, endurance and willpower, needed to perform a task successfully” (Ben-Ami
et al., 2014, p. 1915).
Perceived self-efficacy has received considerable attention in marketing literature as well
as in research concerning the workplace environment. In a marketing context, researchers,
for example, have studied customers’ confidence levels and the extent to which they believe in
their ability to perform the task of operating self-service technologies. Perceived self-efficacy

Intrinsic Extrinsic
Table I.
Factors and relevant Factor: Knowledge self-efficacy Factors: Perceived usefulness and perceived
social exchange enjoyment
motivations for Motivation: Value contribution and competence Motivation: Reciprocity
customer support and affirmation
helping by means of Factor: Help enjoyment Factor: Opinion leadership
knowledge sharing Motivation: Pleasure derived from helping Motivation: Reputation enhancement
was operationalised as customers being confident and believing that they are capable of Understanding
using the service successfully, their performance in using the service is optimal, using the customer
self-service falls within their scope of abilities or they can master the skills required in using
the self-service (Meuter et al., 2005, p. 79; Van Beuningen et al., 2009, p. 424; Wang et al., 2013,
support and
p. 407). Empirical evidence has also been found that customers’ confidence in their ability to help
use self-services contributes positively to service value evaluations and future usage
intention (Van Beuningen et al., 2009, p. 407; Wang et al., 2013, p. 409).
In the workplace context, scholars have studied individuals’ confidence in the task of 613
sharing knowledge with others, which was coined “knowledge self-efficacy”. Perceptions
of knowledge self-efficacy relate to individuals’ confidence in the ability to share
knowledge others may find valuable, having the expertise required to share knowledge
with others, and being able to make a difference by sharing knowledge with others (Al-
Busaidi and Olfman, 2017, p. 135; Andreeva and Sergeeva, 2016, p. 156-157; Cavaliere
et al., 2015, p. 1128; Chang et al., 2014; Henttonen et al., 2016, p. 754; Stenius et al., 2015, p.
511). Individuals’ perceptions of their level of self-efficacy impacts the activities in which
they engage, the effort they will make in executing these, and the extent to which they
would be prepared to persist in the face of difficulties (Bandura and Adams, 1977).
Knowledge is shared with others only if individuals believe they have the capability to
share knowledge that will be valuable (Hung et al., 2011, p. 215). Therefore, the intrinsic
motivation of individuals with knowledge self-efficacy for engaging in social exchanges
of knowledge sharing is to obtain the benefit that, given their capabilities and
competence levels, the knowledge they share with others will be of value. The knowledge
sharing may lead to enhanced perceptions of self-belief or confidence in one’s ability to
share valuable knowledge (Kankanhalli et al., 2005, p. 116).
This second perspective of self-efficacy (knowledge self-efficacy) was deemed relevant for
further investigation in this study. Considering the “partial employee” perspective, it is
plausible that customers who are confident in their ability to share knowledge with others
will engage in social exchange activities involving customer support and help by means of
knowledge sharing to attain the intrinsic motivation benefit that their contribution will be
valuable to other customers, which will further allow for enhanced perceptions of self-
efficacy. Hence, with respect to self-service encounters, it was hypothesised that:
H1. Knowledge self-efficacy has a positive and significant impact on customers’
intentions of providing support and help to other customers by means of knowledge
sharing.

Help enjoyment and pleasure derived from helping

Although help enjoyment is grounded in altruism theory (Cheung and Lee, 2012), the
construct does not underscore complete selflessness. Relative altruism is more prevalent in a
knowledge sharing context. Help is motivated when the enjoyment that may be derived from
helping others exceeds the cost of self-concern, which may have a minor effect on motivating
the behaviour (Kankanhalli et al., 2005, p. 122).
Extant literature further evidences that the relationship between help enjoyment and
knowledge sharing is well established in workplace and marketing literature. In the
workplace environment, enjoyment in helping others has been found to positively impact
knowledge sharing attitudes, intentions and behaviour (Kankanhalli et al., 2005, p. 132; Liao
et al., 2013, p. 895; Singh et al., 2018, p. 34). Help enjoyment has been studied in relation to
enjoyment in sharing knowledge with others, enjoyment in helping others through
knowledge sharing, feeling good about helping someone and deriving pleasure from
helping others (Kankanhalli et al., 2005, p. 142; Lin, 2007, p. 142). Similar perspectives are also
upheld in marketing research, where help enjoyment has been assessed in relation to the
IJQRM perceived enjoyment in helping other customers (Cheung and Lee, 2012), as measured by
37,4 aspects like “feeling good, fun, and challenging” (Lee et al., 2006, p. 295). Help enjoyment has
been found to be an antecedent for customer sharing in web-based discussion boards (Lee
et al., 2006), customers’ intentions to share their thoughts with other customers (Cheung and
Lee, 2012) and consumer blogging (Sepp et al., 2011).
The relationship between help enjoyment and knowledge sharing can be explained by
the pleasure people obtain from sharing knowledge with others. Individuals may derive
614 pleasure when demonstrating altruistic behaviours, solving problems other people may
experience and providing help by means of knowledge sharing (Liao et al., 2013, p. 895).
Hence, the pleasure derived from helping others serves as an intrinsic motivation for
individuals who enjoy helping to engage in social exchanges of knowledge sharing (Hung
et al., 2011, p. 215).
Following these findings, it was plausible to further argue that customers who enjoy
helping others will engage in social exchange activities involving customer support and help
by means of knowledge sharing, because of the pleasure they may derive from these actions,
which subsequently serve as an intrinsic motivation benefit. Thus, with respect to self-service
encounters, it was hypothesised that:
H2. Help enjoyment has a positive and significant impact on customers’ intentions of
providing support and help to other customers by means of knowledge sharing.

Perceived value, reciprocity and the effect of trust

Perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment are factors measuring customers’ perceptions
of the value of technology and are grounded in perceived value theory (Babin et al., 1994; Chiu
et al., 2009; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Teo et al., 1999; Van der Heijden, 2004). Given the
context of this study (electronic banking), these factors were considered relevant for further
investigation. Perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment relate to the utilitarian
(efficiency) and hedonic (emotional worth) aspects of value, respectively (Cha, 2009; Chiu et al.,
2009; Etemad-Sajadi, 2014, p. 421; Perea y Monsuw
e et al., 2004; Van der Heijden, 2004; Wu
and Chang, 2016). Perceived usefulness concerns the extent to which the given technology is
useful in performing the job required and is usually measured by considering aspects like
enhanced performance and effectiveness. Perceived enjoyment refers to the degree to which a
customer will experience fun when using the technology and is assessed by considering
certain aspects, such as excitement, fun and pleasantness (Hsu and Lin, 2008; Van der
Heijden, 2004; Wang et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018, p. 282, 287; Blut et al., 2016, p. 398).
Subsequently, perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment could be seen as benefits
customers may experience when using the organisation’s self-service options.
Furthermore, in workplace literature, it has been noted that when individuals experience
benefits from the organisation – such as fair treatment, care for their well-being and support –
they are likely to show reciprocity, and in return will be highly committed towards the
organisation or engage in proactive or extra-role (citizenship) behaviours (Almutawa et al.,
2018, p. 659; Raineri et al., 2016, p. 49). Reciprocity is contingent on the behaviours of another
individual and concerns an inclination to repay another person for the kindness bestowed
upon them. The reciprocal actions performed are not based on explicit bargaining, but are
grounded in appreciation of the benefits received from another person (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005, p. 875-876; Park and Tran, 2018, p. 3-4).
From this perspective, it seems that reciprocity serves as an extrinsic motivation
benefit for individuals in the workplace, who have benefitted from the organisation, to
return the favour and engage in activities that may also benefit the organisation, such as
being involved in extra-role or citizenship behaviours. Keeping in mind customers’
“partial employee” role, it is then further plausible to argue that customers who have
benefitted from the organisation (such as receiving perceived value) may engage in Understanding
social exchange (citizenship) activities involving customer support and help by means of customer
knowledge sharing to attain the extrinsic motivation benefit of reciprocity. That is, the
organisation that provided useful and enjoyable self-services has been repaid for the
support and
kindness they have bestowed on the customer. Knowledge is being shared with other help
customers who may contribute to greater service quality perceptions and use of the
organisation’s self-services among other customers. Hence, with respect to self-service
encounters, it was hypothesised that: 615
H3. Perceived usefulness has a positive and significant impact on customers’ intentions
of providing support and help to other customers by means of knowledge sharing.
H4. Perceived enjoyment has a positive and significant impact on customers’ intentions
of providing support and help to other customers by means of knowledge sharing.
As mentioned earlier, considering the research context of electronic banking that generally
involves service risk, such as fraud, the decision was made to also examine trust as an
antecedent of perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment and to obtain a more
comprehensive understanding of customers’ perceptions of perceived value. Extant literature
notes trust as a prerequisite to perceptions of perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment
(Wang et al., 2016). This study was interested in competence trust relating to “trustworthiness
on the basis of ability, reliability and competence” (Ko, 2010, p. 205). In a technological
environment, competence trust is associated with the extent to which the technology is
perceived as reliable and free of errors (Johnson, 2007). Accordingly, in this study, it was
envisaged that customers believing the service to be reliable and free of errors (such as
fraudulent activities) would also find the electronic service useful, reliable and enjoyable.
Consequently, it was hypothesised that:
H5. Competence trust has a positive and significant impact on perceived usefulness.
H6. Competence trust has a positive and significant impact on perceived enjoyment.

Opinion leadership and reputation enhancement

Reputational benefits concern individuals being willing to share knowledge with others to
improve or establish their reputation. In workplace literature, it has been indicated that
greater knowledge sharing in the workplace may contribute to reputation enhancement
(Hung et al., 2011, p. 218). By sharing knowledge in the workplace, individuals ensure people
depending on help from others are aware of their personal competence, expertise and ability
to assist in solving work-related problems. Knowledge sharing in the workplace aids
individuals in earning respect and creating an image of being a subject expert (Rode, 2016, p.
155). The skills, expertise and helpfulness demonstrated provide an opportunity for
reputation enhancement and earning recognition from others in the workplace (Kankanhalli
et al., 2005, p. 121; Ou et al., 2016, p. 148; Sedighi et al., 2018, p. 1269).
Similar views are also present in marketing literature, where it has previously been found
that customers’ willingness to share their views in online consumer platforms is dependent on
the extent to which they desire reputation enhancement (Cheung and Lee, 2012, p. 220). By
elegantly expressing their views and providing solutions for problems, customers build the
status of opinion leaders who can influence others (Wu and Sukoco, 2010, p. 13).
Furthermore, opinion leadership relates to an individual’s expertise that may impact the
attitudes and behaviors of others (Flores-Zamora and Garc
ıa-Madariaga, 2017; Flynn et al.,
1996). This is measured by the extent to which a customer is regarded as a good source of
advice by other customers (Reynolds and Darden, 1971) and the extent to which they assist
other customers and persuade them to take a specific action (Risselada et al., 2016). Earlier
IJQRM research has also found a positive and significant relationship between opinion leadership
37,4 and customers’ social intention to engage in online word-of-mouth behavior (Okazaki, 2009).
Once the reputation of an opinion leader has been established, the status must be maintained,
which may lead to further knowledge sharing behaviors (Xiong et al., 2018).
Subsequently, following the earlier explanation, it is evident that reputation enhancement
serves as another extrinsic motivation for individuals to engage in social exchanges of
knowledge sharing. This motivation is also embedded in opinion leaders’ willingness to share
616 knowledge with others, thus providing valuable guidance for the formulation of the next
hypothesis in the proposed model. Within the context of this study, it was argued that when
customers have built a reputation as opinion leaders, they too may engage in social exchange
activities involving customer support and help by means of knowledge sharing to attain the
extrinsic motivation benefit of reputation enhancement. As such, with respect to self-service
encounters, it was hypothesised that:
H7. Opinion leadership has a positive and significant impact on customers’ intentions of
providing support and help to other customers by means of knowledge sharing.
Considering the general characteristics of opinion leaders, it was then further plausible to
argue that, in addition to the possible direct relationship, opinion leadership may also
indirectly affect customer support and help by simultaneously impacting on perceived
usefulness, perceived enjoyment, help enjoyment and knowledge self-efficacy. It is believed
that opinion leaders “possess more experience or expertise with the product category, have
been exposed to or acquired more information about the product, exhibit more exploratory
and innovative behaviour and display higher levels of involvement with the product
category” (Lyons and Henderson, 2005, p. 320). Hence, opinion leaders are considered
specialists or experts of product categories and are technically competent. They are self-
confident and have more confidence in their abilities to make consumption decisions that
are fitting for specific situations. Being deeply involved in a specific product class, opinion
leaders keep up to date with the latest information about this product class, which they find
satisfying to convey to others (Price et al., 1987, p. 331-332; Ruvio and Shoham, 2007, p. 707;
Stokburger-Sauer and Hoyer, 2009, p. 101, 104; Walter and Br€ uggemann, 2018, p. 2). It has
also been stated that opinion leaders find pleasure in answering other people’s questions
(Segev et al., 2012)
Being deeply involved in the product class of which they are experts may enable opinion
leaders to be good judges of the extent to which the self-service option is useful and can be
enjoyed. Their technical competence and confidence in their abilities may enhance their
perceptions of knowledge self-efficacy, while they may simultaneously experience joy in
helping others when addressing their questions and conveying the latest product information
to them. Accordingly, considering the earlier discussion and H1 to H4, this study
hypothesised that, with respect to self-service encounters:
H8. Opinion leadership has a positive and significant impact on knowledge self-efficacy.
H9. Opinion leadership has a positive and significant impact on help enjoyment.
H10. Opinion leadership has a positive and significant impact on perceived usefulness.
H11. Opinion leadership has a positive and significant impact on perceived enjoyment.
H12. Opinion leadership has a positive and significant indirect effect on customers’
intentions of providing support and help to other customers by means of knowledge
sharing, through (a) knowledge self-efficacy, (b) help enjoyment, (c) perceived
usefulness and (d) perceived enjoyment.
Figure 1 illustrates the relationships hypothesised in this section.
 Perceived Understanding
H6 enjoyment customer
Competence trust support and

11
H
H5
H4 help
Perceived
2d H10 usefulness
H1
Opinion H12c H7
H3 Customer support 617
and help
leadership
H9
H12
b H2
Help enjoyment
H1
2a H8
H1
_____ Direct effect
Knowledge self- _ _ _ _ Indirect effect Figure 1.
efficacy Conceptual model

Methodology
Research approach, target population and sample selection
The research approach was quantitative and descriptive in nature. The model was initially
tested among respondents in a developing economy (South Africa) and was later cross-
validated among respondents in a developed economy (Australia) to benefit service providers
in diverse economies, seeking guidance on knowledge sharing among customers, which may
ultimately lead to greater service quality.
As mentioned earlier, the context of this study was electronic banking self-services,
focusing on knowledge sharing among customers. Hence, the population was defined as
existing users of electronic banking self-services in South Africa and Australia. The
respondents were approached in public places on the basis of convenience and requested to
voluntarily and anonymously complete a self-administered questionnaire. Upon refusal,
the next available respondent was approached and invited to take part in the survey. For
each country, a minimum sample size of 230 respondents was targeted, to make provision
for at least 10 observations per estimated item (Bentler and Chou, 1987; Bollen, 1989). The
survey comprised 23 measurement items in total.
The demographic and patronage profiles of the respondents are presented in Table II. In
South Africa, 258 respondents participated in the survey; while in Australia, 253 completed
questionnaires were obtained. All respondents who completed a questionnaire are users of
electronic banking self-services. The samples obtained were subsequently deemed adequate
for further analysis.
Figure 2 provides a graphical illustration of the research process that was followed to
collect data from respondents in South Africa and Australia.
From Table II, it is evident that the opinions of both genders are represented in the
research findings and that the respondents in Australia are generally younger than those
who participated in South Africa. Furthermore, while the participants in both countries were
using a wide spread of electronic banking self-services, the most popular option in South
Africa was Internet banking using a computer, while Australia’s slightly younger group
favoured Internet banking using a mobile banking app.

Measurement scales employed

Existing validated measurement scales were adapted to the context of this study to measure
the respondents’ intentions to provide customer support and help to other customers by
IJQRM SA AU
37,4 Variable Category n 5 258 n 5 253

Gender Males 45.5% 52.5%

Females 54.5% 47.6%
Age Youngest respondent 20 years 16 years
Oldest respondent 78 years 73 years
618 Marginal majority 75% < 47 years 75% < 25 years
Electronic banking usage* Internet banking (computer) 57% 50.2%
Cell phone banking 44.6% 9.1%
Table II. Internet banking (mobile banking app) 38.8% 77.1%
Demographic and Telephone banking 8.9% 17.8%
patronage profile Notes: SA 5 South Africa; AU 5 Australia. *More than one response option was allowed

Research approach
Quantitative survey

Survey instrument
Self-administered questionnaire (23 measurement items)

Respondent selection
Approached respondents in public places (convenience basis)

Data collection
Phase 1: Surveyed respondents in Phase 2: Surveyed respondents in
South Africa Australia

Population
Current users of electronic banking in Current users of electronic banking in
South Africa Australia

Figure 2.
Graphical illustration Realised sample
of the research process
258 respondents in South Africa 253 respondents in Australia

means of knowledge sharing (CS_H), their general perceptions of the perceived usefulness
(PU) and perceived enjoyment (PE) of electronic banking self-services, the extent to which
they trust these self-services (T), whether they perceive themselves as having knowledge self-
efficacy (KSE), and also if they see themselves as opinion leaders (OL) and enjoy helping
others (HE). The suitability of the measurement scales was assessed using face and content
validity techniques. All measurement items were aligned to the research objectives and the
literature review conducted. Input was also obtained from subject experts, who are electronic
banking users themselves, to address possible measurement errors and to ensure that the
stem or original meaning of the measurement items was retained. Appendix 1 provides a Understanding
summary of the final measurement scales employed. The respondents were requested to rate customer
the list of statements using a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from “1” (strong
disagreement) to “5” (strong agreement). In both countries, the respondents were surveyed in
support and
English. help

Data analysis 619

Latent variable modelling was conducted using Mplus version 8.1 (Muth
en and Muth
en,
2017). A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis approach was followed, which was
based on the data obtained from South Africa (group 1) and Australia (group 2). At first,
separate measurement models per country were specified to confirm individual model fit.
A measurement invariance test then assisted in assessing the equivalence of the
variables between the two groups with respect to similar factor structures (configural
invariance), similar pattern loadings (metric invariance) and similar intercepts (scalar
invariance). Subsequent to the identification of an invariant model, the final combined
multi-group measurement and structural models were specified. Model fit and the
significance and direction of the standardised beta coefficients were studied to conclude
on the research hypotheses formulated. The robust form of the maximum likelihood
estimation procedure was applied to accommodate for data that was not normally
distributed. Model fit was assessed by considering the χ 2, comparative fit index (CFI),
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
Convergent validity was established by considering the composite reliability (CR) and
average variance extracted (AVE) measures for each construct, while discriminant
validity was confirmed when the AVE of each construct exceeded the shared variance
between the given constructs (Hair et al., 2010). All parameters were deemed statistically
significant at p < 0.05. Bootstrapping with a 95 percent bias corrected confidence
interval and 5,000 samples was performed to test the indirect effects between opinion
leadership and customer support and helping intentions.

Results and findings

Measurement models per country
Identical measurement models were specified for each country. Model fit was assessed using
confirmatory factor analysis. Table III summarises the individual fit indices obtained from
each model. As the fit indices all fell within the specified parameters, the models were deemed
acceptable for further investigation.
To verify the validity of the measurement models, it was necessary to inspect the latent
factor correlations and AVE values.
Table IV presents the latent factor correlations and the corresponding latent factor AVE
values in brackets on the diagonal. For each latent factor, the findings from the South African

Fit index Recommended cut-off criteria SA AU

CMIN/DF < 5 (Wheaton et al.,1977) 1.98 1.68

TLI > 0.9 (Van de Schoot et al., 2012) 0.95 0.94
CFI > 0.9 (Van de Schoot et al., 2012) 0.96 0.95
RMSEA < 0.08 (Van de Schoot et al., 2012) 0.062 0.052
Notes: CMIN 5 Chi square; DF 5 degrees of freedom; TLI 5 Tucker-Lewis index; CFI 5 comparative fit Table III.
index; RMSEA 5 root mean square error of approximation Overall fit indices
IJQRM Latent factor PU PE CS_H T OL HE KSE
37,4
PU
SA (0.76) – – – – – –
AU (0.65) – – – – – –
PE
620 SA 0.48 (0.72) – – – – –
AU 0.64 (0.56) – – – – –
CS_H
SA 0.24 0.53 (0.78) – – – –
AU 0.52 0.58 (0.59) – – – –
T
SA 0.32 0.32 0.41 (0.64) – – –
AU 0.57 0.47 0.71 (0.53) – – –
OL
SA 0.04 0.39 0.61 0.35 (0.71) – –
AU 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.10 (0.55) – –
HE
SA 0.10 0.50 0.62 0.30 0.81 (0.85) –
AU 0.27 0.48 0.63 0.38 0.64 (0.58) –

Table IV. KSE

Latent factor SA 0.14 0.35 0.52 0.37 0.80 0.82 (0.76)
correlation matrix with AU 0.36 0.40 0.60 0.41 0.63 0.69 (0.61)
AVE on the diagonal Note: All correlations are statistically significant at p < 0.001

data are presented first and the findings from the Australian data are listed directly further.
The square root of the AVE value for each latent factor exceeds the correlation coefficients
between the respective factors. Considering these findings, it can be concluded that, with
respect to both measurement models, no discriminant validity problems were detected and
the constructs measured are empirically distinct from one another (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Hair et al., 2010).
It is also evident from Table V that all standardised factor loadings of the individual
models are greater than 0.5 and are positive and significant at p < 0.001 (Hair et al., 2010). All
CR values exceed 0.7. Considering that all AVE values also exceed 0.5, it can be concluded
that the latent variables of the South African and Australian measurement models show
reliability and convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Byrne, 1998; DeVellis, 2012; Fornell
and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).

Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance

Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using country as the grouping
variable. The modification indices revealed that by freeing item intercept CS_H2, it was
possible to significantly improve model fit and attain an invariant model. Table VI provides a
summary of the fit statistics for the measurement invariance test based on country after
modification.
The re-specified multi-group measurement model produced valid results for further
analysis and comparison of estimates. Acceptable fit statistics were obtained: χ 2 5 808.927;
df 5 449 (χ 2/df 5 1.80); CFI 5 0.95; TLI 5 0.95; RMSEA 5 0.056.
Furthermore, the standardised factor loadings from the South African sample range
between 0.72 and 0.93, while the standardised factor loadings from the Australian sample
 Std. factor loading CR
Understanding
Construct items SA AU SA AU customer
OL1 0.87 0.71 0.92 0.86
support and
OL2 0.88 0.80 help
OL3 0.88 0.79
OL4 0.85 0.76
OL5 0.73 0.62 621
T1 0.74 0.72 0.84 0.77
T2 0.76 0.67
T3 0.90 0.79
PE1 0.82 0.75 0.88 0.79
PE2 0.91 0.73
PE3 0.81 0.76
HE1 0.93 0.72 0.95 0.81
HE2 0.90 0.83
HE3 0.93 0.74
CS_H1 0.83 0.76 0.93 0.85
CS_H2 0.90 0.74
CS_H3 0.91 0.80
CS_H4 0.90 0.77
PU1 0.82 0.83 0.90 0.85
PU2 0.91 0.82
PU3 0.88 0.76
KSE1 0.86 0.73 0.86 0.75 Table V.
KSE2 0.89 0.82 Assessment of latent
Note: All factors loaded significantly at p < 0.001 variables

Grouping Model χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA Δχ 2 Δdf p

a Table VI.
Country Configural 765.04 418 0.955 0.945 0.057 43.89 31 0.186a
Fit statistics for the
Metric 785.85 434 0.954 0.947 0.057 20.81b 16 0.062b measurement
Scalar 808.93 449 0.953 0.947 0.056 23.08c 15 0.083c invariance test based
Notes: a 5 configural vs scalar; b 5 configural vs metric; c 5 scalar vs metric; p 5 model comparison on country after
significance modification

range between 0.64 and 0.84. All factor loadings exceeded the minimum cut-off value of 0.5
(Hair et al., 2010) and were significant at p < 0.001. Moreover, for both samples, all CR and
AVE values were greater than 0.7 and 0.5, respectively, thus providing evidence of reliability
and convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Byrne, 1998; DeVellis, 2012; Fornell and
Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Discriminant validity was also
confirmed, as in both samples the square root of the AVE value for each latent variable
exceeded the correlation coefficients between the relevant variables (Fornell and Larcker,
1981; Hair et al., 2010).

Structural model
Following the findings from the multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, a combined
structural model was estimated that was based on the data obtained from South Africa and
Australia. Adequate fit indices were obtained: χ 2 5 1061.966; df 5 467 (χ 2/df 5 2.27);
CFI 5 0.92; TLI 5 0.92; RMSEA 5 0.071. The structural model results are presented in
Table VII.
 37,4

622

results
IJQRM

Table VII.
Structural model
Standardised β S.E. p Result
Structural path SA AU SA AU SA AU SA AU

H1: KSE → CS_H 0.11 0.32 0.13 0.12 0.408 0.006** Not supported Supported
H2: HE → CS_H 0.26 0.46 0.12 0.13 0.033* 0.001*** Supported Supported
H3: PU → CS_H 0.10 0.28 0.06 0.11 0.100 0.010* Not supported Supported
H4: PE → CS_H 0.24 0.30 0.08 0.14 0.003** 0.032* Supported Supported
H5: T → PU 0.37 0.63 0.09 0.09 0.001*** 0.001*** Supported Supported
H6: T → PE 0.23 0.52 0.08 0.09 0.007** 0.001*** Supported Supported
H7: OL → CS_H 0.39 0.28 0.15 0.17 0.011* 0.092 Supported Not supported
H8: OL → KSE 0.83 0.68 0.03 0.07 0.001*** 0.001*** Supported Supported
H9: OL → HE 0.84 0.70 0.03 0.06 0.001*** 0.001*** Supported Supported
H10: OL → PU 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.444 0.417 Not supported Not supported
H11: OL → PE 0.34 0.33 0.08 0.09 0.001*** 0.001*** Supported Supported
Notes: *Significant at p < 0.05; **Significant at p < 0.01; ***Significant at p < 0.001; β 5 beta coefficient; S.E. 5 standard error
 Concerning the South African model, all hypothesised relationships were significant at Understanding
p < 0.05, p < 0.01 or p < 0.001, except the impact of knowledge self-efficacy and perceived customer
usefulness on customer support and helping intentions, respectively, and also opinion
leadership on perceived usefulness. The statistically significant standardised regression
support and
weights range between 0.23 and 0.84. Therefore, all hypothesised relationships were help
supported, except H1, H3 and H10.
Regarding the Australian model, all hypothesised relationships were significant at
p < 0.05, p < 0.01 or p < 0.001, except the impact of opinion leadership on customer support 623
and helping intentions as well as perceived usefulness, respectively. The statistically
significant standardised regression weights range between 0.28 and 0.70. Thus, with respect
to the Australian data, all hypothesised relationships were accepted, except H7 and H10.
Finally, the bootstrapping of the indirect effects revealed that, concerning the South
African data, opinion leadership only had significant indirect relationships with customer
support and helping intentions through perceived enjoyment (0.08; p < 0.05; 95 percent CI
[0.03, 0.016]) and help enjoyment (0.22; p < 0.05; 95 percent CI[0.03, 0.44]). Hence, support was
only found for H12b and H12d.
Relating to the Australian data, opinion leadership only had significant indirect
relationships with customer support and helping intentions through perceived enjoyment
(0.10; p < 0.05; 95 percent CI[0.03, 0.31]), help enjoyment (0.32; p < 0.05; 95 percent CI[0.15,
0.54]) and knowledge self-efficacy (0.22; p < 0.05; 95 percent CI[0.08, 0.42]). Thus, support was
only found for H12a, H12b and H12d.
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the structural model results, as obtained from the South African
and Australian data.

Discussion and conclusion

It is widely acknowledged that customers supporting each other during service encounters
impact service quality (Jung et al., 2017, p. :426; Kim and Choi, 2016, p. 384; Kim et al., 2018, p.
463; Luo et al., 2019, p. 1310; S
a and Amorim, 2017, p. 1184). An understanding of the theory and
motivations driving these behaviours is becoming even more important in the self-service
environment. As emphasised by quality management literature, some customers lack the
necessary knowledge and skills required to perform the roles assigned to them by service
providers and are reliant on other customers for assistance in operating self-services effectively
(Akesson and Edvardsson, 2018, p. 202). Additionally, customers struggling with self-services

Perceived
enjoyment

Competence trust

Perceived
usefulness

β=.39* Customer support

Opinion
and help
leadership

Help enjoyment

_____ Direct effect Figure 3.

Knowledge self- _ _ _ _ Indirect effect Structural model
efficacy (South Africa)
IJQRM Perceived
37,4 enjoyment

Competence trust

Perceived
usefulness
624 Opinion β= -.28 Customer support
and help
leadership

Help enjoyment

Figure 4. _____ Direct effect

Structural model Knowledge self- _ _ _ _ Indirect effect
(Australia) efficacy

may also be unable to accurately evaluate self-service quality based on generally accepted
criteria, such as functionality, security, assurance, design, reliability and customisation (Lin and
Hsieh, 2011, p. 199; Shamdasani et al., 2008, p. 124). Instead, their perceptions and experiences of
service quality may depend more on the support and help they receive from other customers in
using the self-service effectively. Therefore, customer-to-customer supporting behaviours are
key for promoting service quality in the self-service environment, particularly in the event of
customers being unable to contribute to or effectively evaluate self-service quality themselves.
Furthermore, while extant research has shown scholarly interest in multiple theories that
may explain selected motivations of service customers for providing support and help to other
customers (Choi and Hwang, 2019; Choi and Lotz, 2018; Van Tonder et al., 2018; Yi and Kim,
2017), this study succeeded in providing an alternative and more simplified solution to the
matter, thereby making a novel contribution to self-service and quality management literature.
Considering the relevance of the social exchange theory in workplace literature and the
perception of customers as “partial employees” of the organisation, there was a possibility that
customer support and help during self-service encounters could simply be explained by
multiple motivations of the social exchange theory. The findings from the structural model
involving electronic banking self-services supported this perspective. In the case of South
African customers, help enjoyment, perceived enjoyment and opinion leadership may impact
positively on customers’ intentions to support and help other customers through knowledge
sharing (H2, H4 and H7). The Australian model evidenced that knowledge self-efficacy, help
enjoyment, perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment may positively affect customers’
intentions to provide support and help to other customers by means of knowledge sharing (H1
to H4). The relationships between these factors and customer support and help can all be
accounted for by relevant motivations of the social exchange theory. As such, the research
findings contribute to providing a simplified, more cohesive explanation of customers’
motivations for providing support and help to other customers during self-service encounters.
Another interesting observation is that beyond the well-researched landscape of
knowledge sharing behaviour among employees in the workplace (Curtis and Taylor,
2018; Liu et al., 2012), the research findings offer confirmation that the human capital of the
organisation can be extended to customers who have the potential to act as “partial
employees” of the organisation and transfer their knowledge to other customers during self-
service encounters. As the sharing of knowledge with other customers may lead to greater
adoption and use of self-services, these customers could be considered valuable knowledge
assets and critical enablers for obtaining a competitive advantage in the self-service Understanding
environment. The findings are also significant, given the viewpoint in quality management customer
literature that a key challenge for businesses is to administer quality and mitigate costs in the
face of heightened competition (Duarte et al., 2018, p. 2181). Customers voluntarily providing
support and
support and help to other customers may serve as a cost-effective alternative for promoting help
service quality, especially among customers lacking the knowledge and skills required to
effectively operate self-services.
Further to the aforementioned contributions, several insights could also be derived from 625
the individual constructs and relationships examined, thereby providing a deeper
understanding of customer-to-customer interactions during self-service encounters and the
fundamental principles that may contribute to the promotion of service quality. These
matters and their research implications are addressed further.

Theoretical implications
Prior research in workplace literature holds the perspective that knowledge is shared if
individuals believe in their own competence (knowledge self-efficacy) to provide value to
others (Hung et al., 2011, p. 215). As such, it was expected that knowledge self-efficacy may
impact positively on customer support and help during self-service encounters. However,
support for this relationship was only found in the Australian model, and not in the South
African model (H1). Additionally, only in the case of the Australian customers, a significant
indirect relationship was found between opinion leadership and customer support and help
through knowledge self-efficacy (H12a). These findings may be explained in view of the
demographic profiles of the respondents and the well-recognised digital divide between
emerging (SA) and developed economies (AU) (Bornman, 2016). It is plausible that the slightly
younger customers in Australia are more familiar with modern technologies than the older
customers in South Africa, which influences their perceptions of being competent in sharing
knowledge and information with other customers. As such, customer-to-customer
interactions during self-service encounters may vary, depending on the state of economic
development in a country and impact on the extent to which customers may be confident in
the task of sharing knowledge with others and believing that they have the expertise required
to make a valuable contribution. Further research is required to verify these important
matters, given the primary role that customers could play in promoting service quality during
self-service encounters and that perceptions of self-efficacy may affect the activities in which
customers will engage, the effort they will make in executing them and the extent to which
they would be prepared to persist in the face of difficulties (Bandura and Adams, 1977).
This study further advances understanding of the extent to which customers’ emotions
are involved during self-service encounters and the important role these could play in
affecting customer support and helping behaviours. Customers in South Africa and
Australia who enjoy using self-services and helping others are likely to engage in customer
support and helping behaviours and sharing their knowledge with others during self-
service encounters (H2 and H4). In both models help enjoyment and perceived enjoyment
also played a significant role in providing an indirect path for opinion leadership to
contribute to customer support and help by means of knowledge sharing (H12b and H12d).
Subsequently, the findings concur with earlier research that has identified positive
relationships between help enjoyment and knowledge sharing (Cheung and Lee, 2012;
Kankanhalli et al., 2005, p. 132; Lee et al., 2006; Liao et al., 2013, p. 895; Sepp et al., 2011; Singh
et al., 2018, p. 34), as well as perceived enjoyment and favourable attitudes towards
knowledge sharing (Papadopoulos et al., 2013). Interestingly, prior research has also
identified that with respect to some self-services, favourable hedonic experiences may be
more important for customers than service efficiency (Collier and Barnes, 2015, p. 986, 991.
IJQRM Seeing that the effect sizes for H2 and H4 were greater than H3, it is plausible that in the
37,4 context of this study, customers’ hedonic experiences (perceived enjoyment and help
enjoyment) may also have played a more prominent role than service efficiency (perceived
usefulness) and subsequently served as greater inspiration for providing support and help
towards other customers than service efficiency. Accordingly, this study further makes a
valuable contribution to the growing body of literature on emotions and decision-making
that is increasingly receiving attention in marketing research (Harrison-Walker, 2019;
626 Shank and Robinson, 2019; So et al., 2015, p. 359). Moreover, prior research in workplace
literature has highlighted the impact employee motivations have on service performance
(Cho et al., 2016). This study’s findings provide a fresh perspective on the matter by
emphasising the importance of managing customers’ emotions as well when they fulfil their
duties as “partial employees” of the service provider.
Moreover, it seems perceptions of perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment are
influenced by competence trust in the self-services (H5 and H6). These relationships are
particularly strong in the Australian model, where effect sizes greater than 0.5 were obtained.
The findings subsequently offer further confirmation of the importance of trust as a
prerequisite of value perceptions (Wang et al., 2016). Customers believing the self-service to
be reliable and free of errors (such as fraudulent activities) would find the electronic self-
service useful, reliable and enjoyable. As perceptions of perceived usefulness and perceived
enjoyment may lead to further reciprocal relationships, it is essential to consider these
findings when designing self-service strategies.
Finally, consistent with extant research (Okazaki, 2009; Xiong et al., 2018), this study found
that opinion leadership may contribute to knowledge sharing behaviours. Specifically, within
the context of self-services, opinion leadership may directly or indirectly impact on customer
support and helping behaviours during self-service encounters (H7 and H12). A further
contribution is that H8, H9 and H11 offer novel insight into the extent to which opinion
leadership may impact perceptions of knowledge self-efficacy, help enjoyment and perceived
enjoyment. In fact, in both models, relative high effect sizes (greater than 0.5) were obtained for
the relationships tested in H8 and H9, and moderate effect sizes (greater than 0.3) in the
relationships tested in H11. Subsequently, this study highlights the value of customers who are
also opinion leaders in the self-service environment and the extent to which opinion leadership
may affect a model predicting customer support and helping behaviours during self-service
encounters.

Managerial implications
Service providers in diverse economies (both developed and developing), relying on self-
services, may benefit from the research findings that were cross-validated in two countries
representing different stages of economic development. The findings offer guidance on
factors, as underpinned by the social exchange theory that may advance customer support
and help during self-service encounters. Thus, management of the motivations and factors
presented in the model may be useful in inspiring customers globally to provide support and
help to other users of self-services by means of knowledge sharing, which ultimately may
contribute to the provision of quality services. In developing economies, consumers may have
had limited prior exposure to self-service technologies and may benefit from the knowledge
shared by customers in the effective use of these services. In more developed economies, the
sharing of knowledge by customers may lead to greater efficiency in using the service, which
could result in higher productivity and a more favourable service experience.
Hence, considering the structural paths identified, it may be beneficial for service
providers to appeal to customers’ altruistic nature and the joy they could derive from helping
other customers and sharing knowledge with them. It could be communicated to existing
users that helping their fellow customers to use the self-service would be emotionally
rewarding and a valuable contribution to society. Opinion leadership and knowledge self- Understanding
efficacy may be enhanced by uploading tutorial videos to the organisation’s website, thereby customer
developing customers’ knowledge in using the service. Additionally, customers could be
made aware of exciting updates launched that would enhance the efficiency and productivity
support and
of the self-services and could result in greater fun in using the service. These initiatives may help
reinforce customers’ perceptions of the extent to which the self-service is useful and
enjoyable. It is also important to ensure that the technology employed in facilitating the
service is sound and secure and that errors are kept to a minimum to foster competence trust. 627
Customers should be assured that the organisation has the necessary measures in place for
preventing security risk.

Conclusion, study limitations and future research

Customers providing support to other customers during self-service encounters have become
a frequent occurrence in the marketplace. In the absence of direct employee involvement,
customers are reliant on other customers for support and help in the correct use of the self-
services. Therefore, organisations in the contemporary marketplace depend on customer-to-
customer interactions (Yi and Kim, 2017), which may contribute to greater perceptions of
service quality.
Considering the strategic value of customers providing support and help to other
customers during self-service encounters, it is worthwhile to conduct further research on
this topic. The identified model could be extended in a number of different ways. For
example, this study only considered the role of perceived usefulness and perceived
enjoyment, as key dimensions of the perceived value theory (Babin et al., 1994; Chiu
et al., 2009; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Teo et al., 1999; Van der Heijden, 2004). It
could be useful to further explore other perceived value dimensions, such as social,
conditional and epistemic values (Sheth et al., 1991; Collier and Barnes, 2015, p. 987),
which may also be important and contribute to a better understanding of knowledge
sharing behaviour during self-service encounters. Moreover, Leider et al. (2009) note that
altruistic behaviours may be directed to strangers or friends. The current study
examined helping behaviour in general and did not distinguish between the extent to
which customers may enjoy helping family members and friends, as opposed to helping
strangers. Given the importance of altruism and help enjoyment in inspiring customers
to share their knowledge, though, it may also be beneficial to further explore the effect of
different types of help enjoyment on knowledge sharing behaviour. Additionally, the
current findings are limited to the impact of competence trust on perceived usefulness
and enjoyment. The identified model may be extended by examining other forms of trust
with respect to self-services, such as integrity and benevolence trust, which may affect
perceptions of value as well. Future research could also examine the extent to which a
service provider’s call centre employees would moderate customers’ service quality
perceptions, should customers decide to contact them as well for assistance in solving a
self-service related problem. Finally, the study concentrated on existing users of
electronic banking services in South Africa and Australia. The same study may be
replicated in other countries and different service contexts to determine the applicability
of the identified model to the broader service environment and to augment the
generalisability of the research findings.

References

Akesson, M. and Edvardsson, B. (2018), “Customer roles from a self-service system perspective”,
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 196-210.
IJQRM Al-Busaidi, K.A. and Olfman, L. (2017), “Knowledge sharing through inter-organizational knowledge
sharing systems”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 47
37,4 No. 1, pp. 110-136.
Almutawa, Z.H., Muenjohn, N. and Zhang, J. (2018), “Attitudes and behaviors as predictors of service
quality in the telecommunications sector context”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 656-677.
Andreeva, T. and Sergeeva, A. (2016), “The more the better. . . or is it? The contradictory effects of HR
628 practices on knowledge-sharing motivation and behaviour”, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 151-171.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. and Adams, N.E. (1977), “Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change”, Cognitive
Therapy and Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 287-310.
Ben-Ami, M., Hornik, J., Eden, D. and Kaplan, O. (2014), “Boosting consumers’ self-efficacy by
repositioning the self”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 11/12, pp. 1914-1938, doi: 10.
1108/EJM-09-2010-0502.
Bentler, P.M. and Chou, C.P. (1987), “Practical issues in structural modeling”, Sociological Methods and
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 78-117.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Blut, M., Wang, C. and Schoefer, K. (2016), “Factors influencing the acceptance of self-service
technologies: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 396-416.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Bornman, E. (2016), “Information society and digital divide in South Africa: results of longitudinal
surveys”, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 264-278.
Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic
Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cavaliere, V., Lombardi, S. and Giustiniano, L. (2015), “Knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive
manufacturing firms. An empirical study of its enablers”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1124-1145.
Cha, J. (2009), “Shopping on social networking web sites: attitudes toward real versus virtual items”,
Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 77-93.
Chang, Y.W., Hsu, P.Y., Shiau, W.L. and Tsai, C.C. (2014), “Knowledge sharing intention in the United
States and China: a cross-cultural study”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 262-277.
Chang, H.H., Tsai, Y.C., Chen, S.H., Huang, G.H. and Tseng, Y.H. (2015), “Building long-term
partnerships by certificate implementation: a social exchange theory perspective”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 867-879.
Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O. (2012), “What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in
online consumer-opinion platforms”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 218-225.
Chiu, C.M., Chang, C.C., Cheng, H.L. and Fang, Y.H. (2009), “Determinants of customer repurchase
intention in online shopping”, Online Information Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 761-784.
Cho, M., Bonn, M.A., Han, S.J. and Lee, K.H. (2016), “Workplace incivility and its effect upon restaurant
frontline service employee emotions and service performance”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 2888-2912.
Choi, L. and Hwang, J. (2019), “The role of prosocial and proactive personality in customer citizenship Understanding
behaviors”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 288-305.
customer
Choi, L. and Lotz, S. (2016), “Motivations leading to customer citizenship behavior in services: scale
development and validation”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 539-551.
support and
Choi, L. and Lotz, S.L. (2018), “Exploring antecedents of customer citizenship behaviors in services”,
help
The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 38 No. 9-10, pp. 607-628.
Collier, J.E. and Barnes, D.C. (2015), “Self-service delight: exploring the hedonic aspects of self-service”, 629
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 986-993.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Curtis, M.B. and Taylor, E.Z. (2018), “Developmental mentoring, affective organizational commitment,
and knowledge sharing in public accounting firms”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 142-161.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1980), “The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes”, in
Berkowitz, L. (Ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY,
pp. 39-80.
DeVellis, R. (2012), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Duarte, P., Low, J.F. and Schiffauerova, A. (2018), “Balancing risk and revenue: cost of quality within
the banking industry”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 35
No. 10, pp. 2181-2194.
Emerson, R.M. (1976), “Social exchange theory”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2, pp. 335-362.
Etemad-Sajadi, R. (2014), “The influence of a virtual agent on web-users’ desire to visit the company:
the case of restaurant’s web site”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 419-434.
Famiyeh, S., Asante-Darko, D. and Kwarteng, A. (2018), “Service quality, customer satisfaction, and
loyalty in the banking sector: the moderating role of organizational culture”, International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1546-1567.
Fatima, J.K. and Razzaque, M.A. (2014), “Service quality and satisfaction in the banking sector”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 367-379.
Flores-Zamora, J. and Garc
ıa-Madariaga, J. (2017), “Does opinion leadership influence service
evaluation and loyalty intentions? Evidence from an arts services provider”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 39, pp. 114-122.
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.K. (1996), “Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: two new
measurement scales”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 137-147.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Groth, M. (2005), “Customers as good soldiers: examining citizenship behaviors in internet service
deliveries”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 7-27.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Vol. 7, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2019), “The effect of consumer emotions on outcome behaviors following
service failure”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 285-302.
Hapsari, R., Clemes, M.D. and Dean, D. (2017), “The impact of service quality, customer engagement
and selected marketing constructs on airline passenger loyalty”, International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Henttonen, K., Kianto, A. and Ritala, P. (2016), “Knowledge sharing and individual work performance:
an empirical study of a public sector organisation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 749-768.
IJQRM Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-140.
37,4
Homans, G.C. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, NY.
Hsiao, C.H., Chang, J.J. and Tang, K.Y. (2016), “Exploring the influential factors in continuance usage
of mobile social apps: satisfaction, habit, and customer value perspectives”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 342-355.
630 Hsu, C.L. and Lin, J.C.C. (2008), “Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance, social
influence and knowledge sharing motivation”, Information and Management, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 65-74.
Hung, S.Y., Lai, H.M. and Chang, W.W. (2011), “Knowledge-sharing motivations affecting R&D
employees’ acceptance of electronic knowledge repository”, Behaviour and Information
Technology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 213-230.
Idris, F. and Naqshbandi, M.M. (2019), “Exploring competitive priorities in the service sector:
evidence from India”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 167-186.
Johnson, D.S. (2007), “Achieving customer value from electronic channels through identity
commitment, calculative commitment, and trust in technology”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 2-22.
Jung, J.H., Yoo, J.J. and Arnold, T.J. (2017), “Service climate as a moderator of the effects of customer-
to-customer interactions on customer support and service quality”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 426-440.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge
repositories: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 113-143.
Kim, H.S. and Choi, B. (2016), “The effects of three customer-to-customer interaction quality types on
customer experience quality and citizenship behavior in mass service settings”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 384-397.
Kim, H.S., Lee, J.Y., La, S. and Choi, B. (2018), “Conceptualization and model development of customer-
to-customer encounter quality (CCEQ) in service settings”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 35
No. 6, pp. 463-476.
Ko, D.G. (2010), “Consultant competence trust doesn’t pay off, but benevolent trust does! Managing
knowledge with care”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 202-213.
Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K., Lim, K.H. and Sia, C.L. (2006), “Understanding customer knowledge
sharing in web-based discussion boards: an exploratory study”, Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 289-303.
Leider, S., M€obius, M.M., Rosenblat, T. and Do, Q.A. (2009), “Directed altruism and enforced reciprocity
in social networks”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 124 No. 4, pp. 1815-1851.
Liao, C., To, P.L. and Hsu, F.C. (2013), “Exploring knowledge sharing in virtual communities”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 891-909.
Lin, H.F. (2007), “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-149.
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.
Lin, S.W. and Lo, L.Y.S. (2015), “Mechanisms to motivate knowledge sharing: integrating the reward
systems and social network perspectives”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 212-235.
Liu, C.C., Liang, T.P., Rajagopalan, B., Sambamurthy, V. and Wu, J.C.H. (2012), “Knowledge sharing as
social exchange: evidence from a meta-analysis”, Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 21-47.
Luo, J., Wong, I.A., Matthew, B.K. and Huang, T.L.G. (2019), "Co-creation and co-destruction of service Understanding
quality through customer-to-customer interactions: why prior experience matters",
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1309-1329. customer
Lyons, B. and Henderson, K. (2005), “Opinion leadership in a computer-mediated environment”,
support and
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 319-329. help
Maghsoodi, A.I., Saghaei, A. and Hafezalkotob, A. (2019), “ARTQUAL: a comprehensive service
quality model for measuring the quality of aesthetic environments and cultural centers”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 1490-1521. 631
Meeker, B.F. (1971), “Decisions and exchange”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 485-495.
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown, S.W. (2005), “Choosing among alternative service
delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 61-83.
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.
Muth
en, L.K. and Muth
en, B.O. (2017), Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed., Muth
en & Muth
en, Los
Angeles, CA.
Okazaki, S. (2009), “Social influence model and electronic word of mouth: PC versus mobile internet”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 439-472, doi: 10.2501/S0265048709200692.
Oparaocha, G.O. (2016), “Towards building internal social network architecture that drives
innovation: a social exchange theory perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 534-556.
Ou, C.X.J., Davison, R.M. and Wong, L.H.M. (2016), “Using interactive systems for knowledge sharing:
the impact of individual contextual preferences in China”, Information and Management,
Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 145-156.
Papadopoulos, T., Stamati, T. and Nopparuch, P. (2013), “Exploring the determinants of knowledge
sharing via employee weblogs”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 133-146.
Park, J.H. and Tran, T.B.H. (2018), “From internal marketing to customer-perceived relationship
quality: evidence of Vietnamese banking firms”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, pp. 1-23.
Pattanayak, D., Koilakuntla, M. and Punyatoya, P. (2017), “Investigating the influence of TQM,
service quality and market orientation on customer satisfaction and loyalty in the Indian
banking sector”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 362-377.
Perea y Monsuw
e, T., Dellaert, B.G.C. and De Ruyter, K. (2004), “What drives consumers to shop
online? A literature review”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 102-121.
Price, L.L., Feick, L.F. and Higie, R.A. (1987), “Information sensitive consumers and market
information”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 328-341.
Raineri, N., Mej
ıa-Morelos, J.H., Francoeur, V. and Paill
e, P. (2016), “Employee eco-initiatives and the
workplace social exchange network”, European Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 47-58.
Rew, D., Jung, J. and Cha, W. (2018), “Service productivity vs service quality: a zero-sum game?”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1835-1852.
Reynolds, F.D. and Darden, W.R. (1971), “Mutually adaptive effects of interpersonal communication”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 449-454.
Risselada, H., Verhoef, P.C. and Bijmolt, T.H.A. (2016), “Indicators of opinion leadership in customer
networks: self-reports and degree centrality”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 449-460.
IJQRM Rode, H. (2016), “To share or not to share: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on
knowledge-sharing in enterprise social media platforms”, Journal of Information Technology,
37,4 Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 152-165.
Rosenbaum, M.S. and Massiah, C.A. (2007), “When customers receive support from other customers:
exploring the influence of intercustomer social support on customer voluntary performance”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 257-270.
Ruvio, A. and Shoham, A. (2007), “Innovativeness, exploratory behavior, market mavenship, and
632 opinion leadership: an empirical examination in the Asian context”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 703-722.
S
a, P.M. and Amorim, M. (2017), “A typology of customer-to-customer interaction and its implications
for excellence in service provision”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 28
No. 9-10, pp. 1183-1193.
Sedighi, M., Lukosch, S., Brazier, F., Hamedi, M. and Van Beers, C. (2018), “Multi-level knowledge
sharing: the role of perceived benefits in different visibility levels of knowledge exchange”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1264-1287.
Segev, S., Villar, M.E. and Fiske, R. (2012), “Understanding opinion leadership and motivations to
blog: implications for public relations practice”, Public Relations Journal, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 1-31.
Sepp, M., Liljander, V. and Gummerus, J. (2011), “Private bloggers’ motivations to produce content – a
gratifications theory perspective”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 No. 13-14,
pp. 1479-1503, doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2011.624532.
Shamdasani, P., Mukherjee, A. and Malhotra, N. (2008), “Antecedents and consequences of service
quality in consumer evaluation of self-service internet technologies”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 117-138.
Shank, D.B. and Robinson, D.T. (2019), “Who’s responsible? Representatives’ autonomy alters
customers’ emotion and repurchase intentions toward organizations”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 155-167.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), “Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption
values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Singh, J.B., Chandwani, R. and Kumar, M. (2018), “Factors affecting web 2.0 adoption: exploring the
knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking aspects in health care professionals”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 21-43.
So, J., Achar, C., Han, D., Agrawal, N., Duhachek, A. and Maheswaran, D. (2015), “The psychology of
appraisal: specific emotions and decision-making”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 359-371.
Stenius, M., Hankonen, N., Haukkala, A. and Ravaja, N. (2015), “Understanding knowledge sharing in
the work context by applying a belief elicitation study”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 497-513.
Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. and Hoyer, W.D. (2009), “Consumer advisors revisited: what drives those with
market mavenism and opinion leadership tendencies and why?”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 8 No. 2-3, pp. 100-115.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed., Harper and Row, New
York, NY.
Teo, T.S.H., Lim, V.K.G. and Lai, R.Y.C. (1999), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage”,
Omega, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Trabelsi-Zoghlami, A., Berraies, S. and Ben Yahia, K. (2018), “Service quality in a mobile-banking-
applications context: do users’ age and gender matter?”, Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, pp. 1-30.
Van Beuningen, J., De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M. and Streukens, S. (2009), “Customer self-efficacy in
technology-based self-service: assessing between-and within-person differences”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 407-428.
Van der Heijden, H.. (2004), “User acceptance of hedonic information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 Understanding
No. 4, pp. 695-704.
customer
Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P. and Hox, J. (2012), “A checklist for testing measurement invariance”,
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 486-492.
support and
Van Tonder, E., Saunders, S.G., Lisita, I.T. and De Beer, L.T. (2018), “The importance of customer
help
citizenship behaviour in the modern retail environment: introducing and testing a social
exchange model”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 45, pp. 92-102.
633
uggemann, M. (2018), “Opportunity makes opinion leaders: analyzing the role of first-
Walter, S. and Br€
hand information in opinion leadership in social media networks, Information, Communication
and Society, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 267-287.
Wang, C.Y. (2019), “Customer participation and the roles of self-efficacy and adviser-efficacy”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 241-257.
Wang, C., Harris, J. and Patterson, P. (2013), “The roles of habit, self-efficacy, and satisfaction in
driving continued use of self-service technologies: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 400-414.
Wang, W., Qiu, L., Kim, D. and Benbasat, I. (2016), “Effects of rational and social appeals of online
recommendation agents on cognition- and affect-based trust”, Decision Support Systems,
Vol. 86, pp. 48-60.
Wheaton, B., Muth
en, B., Alwin, D.F. and Summers, G. (1977), “Assessing reliability and stability in
panel models”, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 84-136.
Wu, J.F. and Chang, Y.P. (2016), “Multichannel integration quality, online perceived value and online
purchase intention: a perspective of land-based retailers”, Internet Research, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 1228-1248.
Wu, W.Y. and Sukoco, B.M. (2010), “Why should I share? Examining consumers’ motives and trust on
knowledge sharing”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
Xiong, Y., Cheng, Z., Liang, E. and Wu, Y. (2018), “Accumulation mechanism of opinion leaders’ social
interaction ties in virtual communities: empirical evidence from China”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 82, pp. 81-93.
Yi, Y. and Gong, T. (2013), “Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and validation”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1279-1284.
Yi, Y. and Kim, S.Y. (2017), “The role of other customers during self-service technology failure”,
Service Business, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 695-715.
Zhang, T., Lu, C. and Kizildag, M. (2018), “Banking “on-the-go”: examining consumers’ adoption of
mobile banking services”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 279-295.

Appendix 1

List of items measured

Opinion leadership (Reynolds and Darden, 1971)
OL1: People often ask my advice about e-banking services.
OL2: I sometimes influence the types of e-banking services people use.
OL3: People come to me more often than I go to them for information about e-banking services.
OL4: I feel that I am generally regarded by people as a good source of advice about e-banking
services.
OL5: I can think of at least two people whom I have told about e-banking services in the last six
months.
IJQRM Competence trust (Johnson, 2007)
37,4 T1: I can rely on e-banking technology to execute my transactions reliably.
T2: Given the state of existing e-banking technology, I believe that technology-related errors are
quite rare.
T3: In my opinion, the e-banking technology I use is very reliable.

634 Perceived enjoyment (Hsiao et al., 2016)

PE1: Using e-banking services is pleasurable.
PE2: I have fun using e-banking services.
PE3: I find using e-banking services to be interesting.
Help enjoyment (Cheung and Lee, 2012)
HE1: I like helping other people with e-banking services.
HE2: It feels good to help other people with e-banking services.
HE3: I enjoy helping other members with e-banking services.
Customer support and helping by means of knowledge sharing (Yi and Gong, 2013)
CS_H1: Give advice on how to register for e-banking services.
CS_H2: Assist other people in registering for e-banking services.
CS_H3: Show other people how to use e-banking services correctly.
CS_H4: Show other people how to use certain features of e-banking services.
Perceived usefulness (Hsiao et al., 2016)
PU1: Using e-banking services will improve my performance in managing my personal life.
PU2: Using e-banking services will increase my productivity in managing my personal life.
PU3: Using e-banking services will enhance my effectiveness in managing my personal life.
Knowledge self-efficacy (Cheung and Lee, 2012)
KSE1: I have confidence in my ability to provide knowledge/information about e-banking services
that others may consider as valuable.
KSE2: I have the expertise needed to provide valuable knowledge or information about e-banking
services.

Corresponding author
Estelle van Tonder can be contacted at: estellevantonder4@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com