BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

2022, VOL. 41, NO. 1, 51–71

https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1795258

The role of dissonance reduction and co-creation strategies in shaping smart

service satisfaction – the case of Uber
Reza Mousavi, Bidyut Hazarika, Kuanchin Chen and Thomas Rienzo
Business Information Systems Department, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Ride-sharing apps have both positive and negative impact in our daily lives. To study the negative Received 20 February 2019
impacts especially personal safety issues, this study explores the reaction of ride-sharing app users Accepted 6 July 2020
to such safety issues. We contextualise our study using a scenario based survey. We found empirical
KEYWORDS
support to all the hypotheses by surveying 421 individuals. This study contributes to the Smart services; ride-sharing
information systems literature in providing ways to apply dissonance reduction techniques that apps; service quality;
are a strong predictor of satisfaction. In addition, this study extends the dimensions of service cognitive dissonance; mobile
quality to better suit ride-sharing apps. app user satisfaction

1. Introduction
Smart service systems are an exciting field, where Infor-
mation and Communication Technologies (ICT), service
offerings, participants, and other constituents form an
interactive ecosystem to provide innovation that would
not be possible using any of these components in iso-
lation. This is the reason that National Science Foun-
dation states that ‘The technologies themselves may or
may not be considered ‘smart’, but the creative way in
which they are designed, configured and integrated
into a service system makes the system exhibit smart
behavior.’ Maglio (2015) pointed out that ‘ … service
necessarily involves coordinated action among people
and technologies, creating human-centered service sys-
tems that resist traditional optimization and automation’
(p. ii). Taken together, smart service systems are systems
that include technology, people, service providers and
other components in a coordinated way to create
human-centred services. In the context of the present
study, Uber’s service is initiated, managed, and tracked
using an app. However, it takes technology, passengers,
drivers and other participants to create a ‘smart’ service
experience.
In addition, smart services also possess self-detecting,
self-diagnosing, self-correcting, self-monitoring and self-
organising capabilities. The Uber app is used by individ-
uals to order cab services from one geographic point to
another. When a rider wants to request a ride, the app
shows all the available cabs in the area. The rider has
the option of selecting a specific cab based on historic
driver ratings provided by individuals who have ridden
with that particular driver. Once a rider chooses a driver,
a request is sent. The driver has the option of accepting
or rejecting the request, assisted by Uber ICT which
shows historic ratings of the requesting passenger. If
the driver accepts the request, Uber ICT provides the
passenger location. If the driver does not accept the
ride request, the app looks for next nearest driver and
sends the passenger request. This pattern continues
until a driver accepts the passenger’s request. The app
also lets drivers take back-to back trips. In other words,
when a driver drops off a passenger and someone in
the vicinity of the drop-off point is looking for a ride,
the driver is notified. If the driver accepts the ride,
Uber ICT guides the driver to the next passenger.
These features demonstrate the self-monitoring and
self-organising capabilities of the app, suggesting that a
holistic view of component interaction is likely to offer
new insights into ride-sharing services.
Although smart services offer many advantages to
users, providers, and society, there are associated risks
for all the parties that are not always obvious. Lack of
control over employees and users by service providers
is an important consequence of the Internet of Things
(IoT) in many smart services. Although incorporating
technology helps service providers dramatically increase
the scale of their services, and extend their geographical
scope, it also decreases the service providers’ control over
service quality. Lack of control produces uncertainty for
both service providers and users. These uncertainties are

CONTACT Reza Mousavi reza.mousavi@wmich.edu Business Information Systems Department, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo 49008, MI, USA
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
52 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.
related to autonomy, security, privacy, fairness, and
accessibility (Ebersold & Hartford, 2016). An example
of lack of control in smart services is the application of
crowdsourcing as a source of information that is shared
with users in smart services. Although crowdsourcing
geospatial data is used by many service providers, val-
idity is still questionable (Van Exel et al., 2010). Simi-
larly, as Uber enjoys exponential growth worldwide, it
is becoming more difficult for the company to control
the quality of drivers and prevent potential threats
(such as sexual assaults, robbery or deaths) to passengers
and vice-versa. Reports of these threats and safety issues
are not uncommon as searches in major news outlets or
search engines reveal occurrences of these threats in sev-
eral forms. Many researchers tried to study safety issues
with ridesharing services such as Uber from different
points of views such as law, regulations, technology,
etc. (e.g. Davis, 2015; Pfeffer-Gillett, 2016; Posen, 2015;
Witt et al., 2015).
Most extant models involving perception and evalu-
ation of threats caused by smart services focus on how
threats are addressed by other parties. The body of
knowledge in this context is limited to cyber threats com-
prised of information shared by users with the other par-
ties (Bibri, 2015, Chapter 7). Another threat that has
been increasingly publicised on the internet in recent
years is the threat of physical harm (Al Hasib, 2009).
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, information sys-
tems researchers have not addressed how threat induced
cognitive dissonance (i.e. discomfort resulting from
conflicts in attitudes, beliefs and/or behaviours) could
be alleviated through psychological strategies in order
to promote satisfaction and further adoption of smart
services.
Despite problems associated with lack of control for
service delivery or quality, the number of people who
use smart services has increased exponentially since
these services were introduced (Roberts & Mok,
2011). It may seem that smart service users employ
these services regardless of potential threats to either
personal information or safety. This continued use of
service is not necessarily the result of an acceptable
level of service quality, but instead could signify poten-
tial hidden issues. For example, usage of service could
be due to lack of acceptable alternatives, which makes
the original service vulnerable to replacement or fierce
competition when an alternative becomes available.
Even if a company is not directly responsible for the
consequences of its lack of control for service quality,
resulting issues could still potentially damage the cus-
tomer-supplier relationship (Roggeveen et al., 2012).
Therefore, an inconsistency between behaviour and
attitude may well arise when users choose to use
ride-sharing services knowing that potential threats
could happen to them. In this case, the actual usage
behaviour contradicts the user’s attitude of fear for a
potential threat, causing ‘dissonance’ to happen.
According to the Cognitive Dissonance Theory
(CDT), dissonance is a state of inconsistency when
an individual believes something, but behaves differ-
ently (Festinger, 1957).
Dissonance triggered by fears of potential physical
threats (e.g. Uber drivers studied in the present research)
could motivate passengers to adopt strategies to reduce
such dissonance. With this dissonance managed, discre-
pancies between existing and expected service are
reduced, thereby improving the quality of the ride-shar-
ing service ecosystem. This self-correction mechanism is
important for smart systems since it signifies that the
whole service ecosystem does possess adaptation capa-
bilities akin to living organisms capable of reducing
gaps in existing services. The original perspective of
CDT research offers three forms of dissonance reduction
strategies, namely (1) change one of the dissonance
elements, (2) add consonant cognitions and (3) trivialise
the elements involved in the dissonant relations (Simon
et al., 1995). These three strategies of dissonance
reduction are rarely studied together empirically despite
the fact that the literature (Olson & Stone, 2005) suggests
that consumers may simultaneously adopt multiple
reduction strategies.
Although CDT stresses the ‘balance among cognitive,
affective and conative components of the person’ (Simon
et al., 1995), a similar line of research was developed in
the service literature that emphasises customer co-cre-
ation – a proactive way that consumers act with the ser-
vice providers to enhance service deliverables. Active
involvement of customers to overcome service failure
can reduce negative cognitive dissonance (Sven Heiden-
reich et al., 2015), thus offering an alternative way to
manage dissonance. Unlike the reduction strategies of
original CDT research that require intrinsic manipu-
lation of attitude, belief or thoughts, co-creation goes
beyond a solo approach into a community crafted sol-
ution. As a result, role clarity, perceived value, and satis-
faction of service are improved through joint efforts
(Dong et al., 2008). As of this writing, there has been
minimal scholarly evidence examining the combined
effects of co-creation and three forms of dissonance
reduction on service satisfaction. Therefore, this study
is designed to study those effects in the context of
smart services.
Based on the assessment described in the preceding
paragraphs, the following research questions are
designed to uncover insights from the intertwined
relationships among service quality, dissonance

reduction, and co-creation related to their joint effects on
the adoption of smart service systems.
Q1: How do smart service users react to safety issues
caused by smart services?
According to Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT),
individuals who perceive threats caused by another
party would be motivated to find a way to reduce their
levels of dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Perception of a
safety issues is a cognition which differs from the concept
of fear arousal in protection motivation theory (Ruiter
et al., 2001). According to CDT, there are three cognitive
responses to threats that users consider to reduce the dis-
sonance they perceive (Festinger, 1957). Co-creation
may mitigate that dissonance. This prompts three
additional research questions:
Q2: How might smart service users apply cognitive dis-
sonance reduction strategies, suggested by cognitive dis-
sonance theory, to reduce existing dissonance between
expected and perceived service quality?
Q3: How do dissonance reduction strategies affect co-
creation of services?
Q4: How do the dissonance reduction from CDT and
co-creation from service literature jointly affect the
final satisfaction and usage of smart service systems?
To address these research questions, we focus on Uber
as a smart service ecosystem that uses technology to pro-
vide riding services for individuals. The Uber ecosystem
consists of the app, the individual, the driver and the
company. Using a scenario based survey, this study
measures Uber passengers’ perceptions and behaviours
when they become aware of possible safety issues.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows:
(1) previous studies that apply dissonance reduction
strategies, service quality and value co-creation are
reviewed; (2) theories underlying our model and hypoth-
eses are discussed; (3) research methods and results are
presented; (4) results, limitations, and implications for
future research and practice are discussed.
2. Literature review
2.1. Three original strategies of dissonance
reduction in cognitive dissonance theory (CDT)
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) postulates that an
individual could experience discomfort or dissonance
when there is an inconsistency among cognitions such
as beliefs, attitudes, opinions, or behaviours (Festinger,
1957; I. Park et al., 2015). The dissonance experienced
would motivate the individual to seek ways to reduce
its intensity. A frequently cited example from Festinger
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 53
is smoking. Smokers often consider smoking to be enjoy-
able, despite knowing possible detrimental effects to their
health that eventually could result if they continue to
smoke. As long as smokers continue to use tobacco
despite knowing the potential health risks, inconsistency
would continue to cause dissonance. When dissonance
does occur, it can be managed through several reduction
strategies (Festinger, 1957; Y. J. Liang, 2016).
Festinger suggested three techniques for dissonance
reduction. The first is simply changing one of the disso-
nant elements (such as behaviour, attitude, value, etc.) to
be consistent with the context the individual is in (Fes-
tinger, 1957). Festinger indicates that behaviour may
change in response to new evidence or new information,
but it could also be difficult to change behaviour due to
the cost of change, degree of difficulty for change, pain-
fulness of change, loss of what was once owned, and
other reasons (Olson & Stone, 2005). Taking the context
of our study as an example, a complete termination of
Uber use in response to potential safety issues could
possibly result in undesirable consequences, such as
inconvenience, increased cost (monetary, time, etc.) of
transportation, or reduction in enjoyment, which
makes it a less desirable option. Although behavioural
change may be costly, changing attitudes, values, or
other dissonant elements may not be as costly. As a
result, this first reduction technique still offers multiple
opportunities for dissonance reduction, even in the con-
text of our study.
The second dissonance reduction strategy is to seek
information that would justify a cognitive element
(belief, attitude or behaviour), while reducing, ignoring
or devaluing the importance of information that would
counter that element. The main goal of this information
is the increase of cognitive consonance that eventually
reduces the overall level of inconsistency (Simon et al.,
1995). The third strategy involves decreasing the impor-
tance of dissonance elements. For example, knowing
head injuries is a possibility in football, a football player
might think that the likelihood of serious head injuries to
him as an individual is quite low due to the position he
plays, or that the head protection methods that he uses
will protect him. Simon et al. (Simon et al., 1995) called
this third strategy ‘trivialization’, a term which has
gradually received acceptance in the scholarly
community.
Many early studies of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
(CDT) sought to identify the effects of individual disso-
nance reduction techniques in isolation, but theoretical
support for the collective effect of multiple dissonance
reduction techniques concurrently in action is also avail-
able. In their network framework called the consonance
model, Shultz & Lepper (1996) proposed that dissonance
54 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.

reduction could be viewed as a constraint satisfaction shopping services. Similarly, to measure the information
problem where consonance is reached through simul- quality of mobile networking services, Chae, Kim, Kim,
taneous satisfaction of multiple weighted soft con- & Ryu (2002) used connection quality, content quality,
straints. The process of dissonance reduction (or interaction quality, and contextual quality. In addition,
increasing consonance) is conceptually viewed as a sim- Kim, Park, & Jeong (2004) used call quality, value-
ultaneous consideration of personal cognitions that posi- added services, and customer support to measure service
tively or negatively influence dissonance. Additionally, quality of mobile services. Appendix A presents
dissonance elements are frequently related to other additional studies that have used different dimensions
elements, adding complexity to the final dissonance to measure service quality. Although the Uber smart ser-
assessment (Olson & Stone, 2005). As Festinger (1957) vice has specific transportation objectives, utilisation of
and Olson & Stone (2005) suggested, the magnitude of the service involves generic dimensions of accessibility,
the final dissonance assessment depends on the aggrega- responsiveness, reliability and assurance. Given the
tion of the degree to which relevant cognitions are con- risks of travelling with strangers, security is clearly an
sistent or contradictory to each other. Since dissonance important service characteristic to evaluate. Based on
assessments involve evaluations of a variety of dissonant the aforementioned studies of service quality, this
elements, strategies for dissonance reduction cannot be study addresses the service quality of smart systems
designed as one-size-fits-all solutions. Multiple strategies using six dimensions: accessibility, responsiveness,
can be used to resolve dissonance, especially when the reliability, security, assurance and tangibles. The
outcome of one strategy may not be beneficial, or it is definition of each of the six dimensions are in Table 1.
too costly to bet on one strategy alone. For example,
potential threats associated with Uber use could be
reduced using multiple dissonance reduction techniques. 2.3. Value co-creation
The effect of any reduction technique may be uncertain
or difficult to predict, which makes it imprudent to The extant body of knowledge considers value co-cre-
rely only on a single reduction strategy if one is deter- ation as a process of value creation resulting from
mined to resolve/reduce dissonance.
Table 1. Perceived smart service quality dimensions.
Dimension Definition Reference
2.2. Service quality
Accessibility Extent to which the content of Tan et al. (2013)
Service quality has been widely studied in the infor- the smart technology is Bauer et al. (2006)
compatible with users
mation systems field. It is the difference between custo- employing dissimilar
mer expectations from a service, and perceived technological platforms (e.g.
accessing content in the same
performance (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988). The initial manner and presentation
scale developed to measure service quality was the format even when utilising
windows, iOS operating
SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al., 1988). It system)
includes five dimensions: tangibles, responsiveness, Responsiveness Willingness of the smart Kim et al. (2004)
technology service provider to Gefen (2002)
reliability, assurance and empathy. Since then, many help users regarding any issues Devaraj et al.
new scales have been developed such as SERVPERF or questions they might have. (2002)
(Cronin and Taylor, 1992) with better predictive Reliability User perception that the smart Jiang et al. (2002)
service provider is providing Santos (2003)
power. SERVPERF has been used in many information the promised service in a
studies to measure service quality (e.g. Dyke et al., reliable, dependable, and
timely manner.
1997; Pitt et al., 1997). Security User perception that the smart Surjadjaja, Ghosh, &
The dimensions of service quality have evolved. To service provider has the Antony (2003)
necessary steps in place to Zeithaml &
measure service quality of websites, Kuo (2003) used protect users from risks such as Parasuraman
dimensions of advertising, mail management, customer fraud, financial loss, physical (2002)
harm, etc.
service management, online quality and information Assurance User perception that the smart Devaraj et al. (2002)
safety, webpage design and content, and extra functions service provider’s actions Jiang et al. (2002)
and service. Yang, Zhou, & Zhou (2005) measured con- imparts a feeling of confidence
and trust in them through
tent quality of websites using usability, usefulness of con- quick interaction and
tent, adequacy of information, accessibility, and answering of questions.
Tangibles User perception of the O’Neill, Wright, & Fitz
interaction. Bauer, Falk, & Hammerschmidt (2006) equipment, personnel, and (2001)
used functionality/design, enjoyment, process, reliability, communication assets of smart Gefen (2002)
service providers.
and responsiveness to measure quality of online

many actors participating in service ecosystems. The
process involves integration of resources by these actors
(Barrett et al., 2015; Grönroos & Voima, 2013; Gummes-
son & Mele, 2010). A service system is a configuration
incorporating different parties (service providers and
users) that creates and delivers value through inter-
actions between these parties (Jaakkola & Alexander,
2014). A limited number of researchers have investigated
antecedents and consequences of value co-creation in the
context of technology-enabled smart services. Heiden-
reich & Handrich (2015) focused on individual character-
istics and differences as antecedents of intention to co-
create among technology-enabled services. These authors
defined intention to co-create as ‘the willingness of a cus-
tomer to co-create as a condition or state in which a cus-
tomer is prepared and likely to create value together with
the company by actively engaging in the service provision
and consumption’. In non-technology contexts, Gebauer,
Fuller, & Pezzei (2013) show that the co-creation experi-
ence has a direct effect only on willingness to pay, but
not necessarily on positive word-of-mouth. Grissemann
& Stokburger-Sauer (2012) demonstrated co-creation
not only relates to a customer’s actual spending on the
co-created product or service, it also positively affects sat-
isfaction and loyalty.
Service users’ intention to co-create is affected by their
perceived benefits and costs of co-creation behaviour
(Hoyer et al., 2010; Sanchez-Fernandez & Iniesta-
Bonillo, 2007). The benefits of co-creation extend
beyond the individual co-creating users. One of the
most important benefits of co-creation for technology-
enabled service users is that users will be able to custo-
mise the services for themselves (Etgar, 2008; Payne
et al., 2008), thereby meeting their needs and wants
more easily. On the other hand, co-creation is not free
to users. It demands energy and engagement (Dong
et al., 2008; Hoyer et al., 2010).
Value co-creation involves ‘coworking with custo-
mers’ directly or indirectly (Gosling et al., 2006) or get-
ting their input in the product/service design process
(Lemke et al., 2011). Customers can get involved in a
facilitation role (Ranjan & Read, 2016) or in an active
role through knowledge application and information
sharing (Rahman et al., 2019). Customers can help create
value in two ways – through their ability and through
their willingness (Merz et al., 2018). To take advantage
of the customers’ ability and willingness, companies
must get them involved and engaged. Companies refer
to them as customer-owned resources. Customer
owned resources include customers’ knowledge, persua-
sion capital/skills, creativity and network-assets/con-
nectedness (Harmeling et al., 2017). In other words,
customer-owned resources are ‘tangible and intangible
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 55
assets that firms use to conceive of and implement its
strategies’ (Barney & Arikan, 2001, p. 138). This means
that customers are not only a source of financial patron-
age but also a source of developing or bettering existing
products or services.
2.4. Service ecosystem
Vargo and Lusch (2017) defined service ecosystems as
‘relatively self-contained self-adjusting systems of
resource-integrating actors connected by shared insti-
tutional arrangements and mutual value creation
through service exchange’ (pp. 10-11). Ecosystems are
comprised of actors that interact with each other using
self- adjusting systems. These actors interact and engage
with each other using their worldview and mental
models to shape their interaction practices (Bourdieu,
1977). Recent studies such as Taillard et al. (2016) have
similar findings where shared intentions among actors
lead to coordination of their shared practices.
Existing literature on service ecosystems (e.g. Frow
et al., 2016; Vargo & Lusch, 2017) has identified the
need to understand different interactions between actors
and how value is created from them. There are three
levels of service interaction, (1) the micro level or indi-
vidual actor (Hardyman et al., 2015; Mirabito & Berry,
2015); (2) the macro level, e.g. the organisational level;
and (3) the meso level or the intra-organisational level.
Even though the meso level is considered ‘crucial’
(Lusch et al., 2016), ‘critical’ (Elsner, 2007), and the
‘missing link’ (Schenk et al., 2007), this level is mostly
ignored (Reid et al., 2010). Meso level service interaction
is an important aspect to study because it helps under-
stand the nature of the entire ecosystem as well as the
complex relationships within the ecosystem (Frow
et al., 2019).
In their study, Voss et al. (2016) highlight the impor-
tance of various contextual variables in a specific ecosys-
tem. Each ecosystem evolves continuously (Chandler &
Vargo, 2011). Hence, we examine the service ecosystem
in the specific context of ride sharing which presents a
highly complex and interconnected ecosystem at the
meso level.
3. Model development and hypotheses
Users’ satisfaction with products or services has always
benefitted suppliers’ profitability (Anderson et al.,
1994) and purchasing intentions (Loiacono & Watson,
2007). User satisfaction affects customer retention
while increasing loyalty, product usage and positive
word of mouth. In a smart service, user satisfaction can
be considered from two different aspects: one from the
56 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.
smart service itself, and second from the smart service
provider. Satisfaction with the smart service comes
from the interaction of the user with the service itself
(Susarla et al., 2003). Satisfaction with the service provi-
der comes from different services provided by the service
provider such as technical support, update notices,
firmware updates, security, user evaluations, and so
forth (Song et al., 2014). Therefore, we emphasise user
satisfaction with the whole smart service ecosystem in
this study rather than post-purchase satisfaction with
the service itself.
Improvement in service quality increases user satis-
faction (Kettinger et al., 2009; Rust & Zahorik, 1993).
Previous studies of website and online shopping have
shown that service quality positively influences customer
satisfaction (Bauer et al., 2006; Collier & Bienstock, 2006;
Hsu, 2006; Kuo, 2003; Lee & Lin, 2005; C. Park & Kim,
2008). Similar studies in the telecom industry reached
the same conclusion (Kim et al., 2004; Turel & Serenko,
2006; Y. Wang et al., 2004). Thus, we propose the follow-
ing hypothesis:
H1: Service quality positively influences user satisfaction
of ride-sharing services apps.
Studies (e.g. Simon et al., 1995) suggest that once a
dissonance reduction strategy is adopted, participants
in experiments may not use other strategies. In the orig-
inal works by Festinger, he specifically cautioned that his
three reduction strategies do not necessarily resolve dis-
sonance. This implies the chosen reduction could fail,
but it is natural for someone determined to reduce disso-
nance to move on to another reduction strategy. This
view is largely based on the asynchronous (or sequential)
view, where reduction strategies are used in sequence
until other conditions happen that cause the selection
of reduction strategies to terminate. However, if stakes
are high (e.g. a possibility of safety issue in our Uber
example) using a sequential mode may not give one
enough time to move to another strategy after the first
has failed. Therefore, the synchronous view, where mul-
tiple reduction strategies might be considered and
employed, is a viable possibility. McGrath (2011) ques-
tioned inductionist interpretations of sequential options
when describing experiments that ‘ … present partici-
pants with these [dissonance reduction] options serially,
which tells us little about individuals’ actual use of disso-
nance reduction strategies outside of the laboratory
environment’ (p. 32). As part of the scarce evidence
representing a synchronous view, Brijball’s (2001) work
on post-purchase perception of motor-vehicles found
that not only are dissonance reduction strategies highly
correlated with each other, but also participants used
multiple strategies at the same time.
If service providers do not support dissonance
reduction techniques, customer dissatisfaction will
result. Sharifi and Esfidani (2014) found a direct negative
relationship between dissonance and satisfaction among
cell phone users. However, if customers have a way to
alleviate dissonance despite the lack of action from pro-
viders, their satisfaction may be improved. In other
words, efforts to reduce dissonance adds value to user
experiences with a company’s product, which may in
turn affect user perception of satisfaction. Similarly, Oli-
ver (2010) provided an operation model of dissonance in
the expectation – disconfirmation process, where disso-
nance reduction had a moderating effect on the relation-
ship between regret and satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Mao
& Oppewal’s (2010) work showed that dissonance
reduction through post-purchase reinforcement had an
effect on consumers’ satisfaction with service. Rooted
in the rationale of customers being active participants
to shape their own experience with the service provider
(e.g. Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) through dissonance
reduction techniques, we posit the following hypothesis:
H2: Dissonance reduction strategies have a positive
effect on satisfaction.
Co-creation requires that customers and suppliers
actively work together to create business value as well
as foster better customer experiences. However, a key
element that supports intention to co-create is custo-
mers’ ability to carry out the work required for co-cre-
ation (Dong et al., 2008). The three forms of
dissonance reduction techniques previously discussed
result from people seeking ways to relieve their discom-
fort/dissonance (Voisin et al., 2013). Individuals who
participate in co-creation of products and services
believe that providers are giving them an opportunity
to address their issues or complaints. This leads consu-
mers to adopt a partnership perspective because they
judge they have a platform to fix their issues and reduce
their dissonance. During co-creation, individuals can
suggest different ways to address concerns that are
important to them. There is also evidence that choosing
dissonance reduction strategies can be a relatively auto-
matic process that does not require intense mental or
physical involvement (Lieberman et al., 2016). As Festin-
ger indicated, these reduction strategies do not always
guarantee a satisfactory resolution of dissonance. This
gives consumers a reason to pursue other forms of
reduction techniques. The service literature shows that
co-creation can reduce dissonance (Sven Heidenreich
et al., 2015). As co-creation requires additional dedica-
tion to work with others, customers will more likely par-
ticipate if they genuinely care about reducing dissonance.
Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis to study the

relationship between dissonance reduction and co-cre-
ation intention:
H3: Dissonance reduction strategies are positively
associated with co-creation intention.
Several studies in the literature investigate the
relationship between individuals’ satisfaction and loyalty
in technology-enabled services contexts (e.g. Levy, 2014).
Intention to co-create is a result of a cost benefit trade-off
that includes all benefits to users and the other parties
(Hoyer et al., 2010; Sanchez-Fernandez & Iniesta-
Bonillo, 2007). Loyal users perceive benefits from colla-
borating with service providers to create more value for
themselves and others in the future. Loyal users are
more likely to co-create since they want to (1) help the
service provider prosper and guarantee that the service
will be available for them in the future and (2) customise
services with their own preferences. Through co-cre-
ation, customers are more likely to report a higher
level of satisfaction (Vega-Vazquez et al., 2013) and an
intention to continue contributing to future co-creation
efforts (Dong et al., 2008). Roggeveen, Tsiros, & Grewal’s
(2012) work shows that customer satisfaction is more
pronounced in co-creation under more severe situations,
such as severe service delays.
Users involved in co-creating processes are contribut-
ing their own time and expertise in order to receive some
benefits for themselves and other parties (Dong et al.,
2008; Hoyer et al., 2010). To get the benefit of the
value they create, they are more likely to use the service
in the future. The literature suggests that customers
involved in co-creation are more willing to pay for pro-
ducts (Schreier, 2006), have more loyalty to providers of
those products, and spend more on the provider’s pro-
ducts or services (Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer,
2012). In sum, co-creation not only generates a positive
psychological effect (such as satisfaction), it enhances
adoption behaviour as well. Therefore, we postulate the
following two hypotheses:
H4: Co-creation has a positive effect on customer
satisfaction.
H5: Customer co-creation intention has a positive effect
on consumer intention to use ride-sharing services apps.
Although a few studies in the past explained the ante-
cedents of ride-sharing use from different perspectives
(e.g. Amirkiaee & Evangelopoulos, 2018), satisfaction
has not been investigated in this context yet. Satisfaction
is defined as an individual’s evaluation of a product, an
affective condition resulting from his or her overall
experience. It is an important antecedent to an individ-
ual’s re-use or re-purchase intentions (e.g. Anderson &
Sullivan, 1993; R. Oliver, 1980). Satisfaction has been
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 57
widely studied in information systems (IS) continuance
research. In investigating factors that affect IS continu-
ance research, Bhattacherjee (2001) found that user sat-
isfaction is the strongest driver of usage continuance.
Similar studies that explored the relationship between
satisfaction and continuance intention in online broker-
age service (Bhattacherjee, 2001) or web-based learning
systems (Chiu et al., 2007) had the same conclusion. In
the context of e-commerce, Devaraj et al. (2002) found
that satisfaction is a key determinant of customer chan-
nel preference. Broadly speaking, satisfaction is a key
determinant of continuance intention. Thus, we propose
the following hypothesis:
H6: Consumer satisfaction has a positive effect on con-
sumer intention to use ride-sharing services apps.
Based on the aforementioned premises, we propose a
conceptual model (see Figure 1) for this study that pre-
sents six sets of relationships. Table 1 provides a descrip-
tion of the dimensions of service quality used in this
study.
4. Research methodology
To test our research model (see Figure 1), we used a com-
bination of previously validated and self-developed items
(see Appendix B). We used a 7 point Likert scale to con-
vert all survey questions to ordinal variables and measure
intensity of participants’ attitudes on Likert scales of
agreement. The 7 points on the Likert scale were:
strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, neither
agree/disagree, somewhat agree, agree, and strongly
agree. Data was collected using an online survey from
students at two urban US universities. Even though
using students might raise some issues regarding gener-
alisability, Smith (2016) found that most of Uber’s user
base tends to be young adults, urbanities and college stu-
dents. In addition, a recent study conducted by Pew
Research Center in January 2019 found that more than
50% of the Uber users are in the age group of 18–29
years. According to National Center of Education Stat-
istics, around 19 million students will be attending 4-
year colleges in 2020 and out of the 19 million students,
17 million students are 30 years or younger, which would
represent Uber users in general (JingJing Jiang, 2019;
Snyder, 2020). We used two universities, both in urban
areas with big student populations that are in the age
group of 18–25 years, which is within the average Uber
user range. The total number of the participants in the
survey was 421. Table 2 shows the demographics of the
participants. We used a scenario-based questionnaire
to operationalise our study. Scenario based question-
naires have been widely used in IS research (e.g. Moores
58 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.

Figure 1. Structural model and hypotheses.

& Chang, 2006; Siponen & Vance, 2010). Before asking experience, including Uber app, drivers, cars, company,
the participants to answer the questions on our survey payment, etc.
we asked them to read the following paragraph and at
the start the survey asked if they had experience with In our study, participants read an online article that
Uber in the past. summarised safety issues reported by Uber passengers.
The purpose of this survey is to study how people We believe that the act of reading about safety issues
use Uber. Specifically, this survey aims to understand would increase cognitive dissonance among the survey
the factors that affect the whole Uber ecosystem in takers towards the Uber ecosystem. Once the summary
case any security threat happens. In all the questions of safety issues was read, we applied three dissonance
in this survey, the Uber, Uber app, or Uber ecosystem
reduction techniques – (1) change in attitude/behav-
refers to the entire interactive system of the Uber
iour/belief, (2) acquire new information and (3)
reduction of the importance of cognitive dissonance to
Table 2. Demographics. determine effects on cognitive dissonance. Value co-cre-
Percentage ation, satisfaction and intention to use ride-sharing apps
Attribute Value Frequency (%) were also measured after the three dissonance reduction
Gender Male 244 58 techniques were applied. The impact of service quality on
Female 177 42
Age 18−24 387 92 satisfaction was measured independent of the cognitive
25−34 31 7 dissonance reduction techniques.
older than 35 3 1
Income Less than $ 10,000 270 65
$ 10,000−$ 20,000 84 20
$ 20,000−$ 35,000 32 7
$ 35,000−$ 65,000 25 6 5. Analysis and results
More than $ 65,000 10 2
Race White 323 77 To evaluate the measurement and structural model we
African American 47 11
Asian 27 7
used Partial Least Squares (PLS) method with Smart
Hispanic 9 2 PLS (v. 3.2.6). Our analysis approach included: (1) ana-
Other 15 3 lysing the measurement model to assess reliability and
Employment Part-time 265 63
Status employment validity of the measurement items, (2) testing for pres-
No employment 120 28 ence of common method bias (CMB) and endogeneity,
Full-time 36 9
employment and (3) analysing the structural model to evaluate pre-
Marital Status Single 403 96 dictive power of the model and statistical significances
Married 18 4
of the hypotheses.

5.1. Measurement model
Reliability, internal consistency, and discriminant val-
idity were assessed to measure the adequacy of the
measurement model (Hulland, 1999). To assess con-
struct reliabilities, we measured Cronbach’s alphas and
composite reliabilities. According to Nunnally & Bern-
stein (1978) and Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & William
(1998), values greater than 0.7 indicate acceptable
reliability (see Appendix C). Convergent validity was
analysed by calculating Average Variance Extracted
(AVE). AVE values greater than 0.7 show that the latent
variable explains enough variation in the indicators (see
Appendix C) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The diagonal
values in the same table represent the root squares of
AVE and measure convergent validity. To assess discri-
minant validity of the measurement model, AVE values
are supposed to be greater than the off-diagonal corre-
lations (see Appendix C). Another approach to assess
discriminant validity is to evaluate the factor loading of
each associated construct. The loading of the items
associated with each construct should be significantly
higher than the loadings of the items associated with
the other constructs (see Appendix D) (Chin, 1998).
Our analysis results support that the measurement
model is valid and reliable.
5.2. Common method bias and endogeneity
assessment
CMB refers to ‘variance that is attributable to the
measurement method rather than to the constructs the
measures represent’ (Podsakoff et al., 2003, p. 879).
CMB may cause systematic measurement errors and
either inflate the observed relationships between the con-
structs and create Type I and II errors. In fact, when
researchers use similar methods to measure two con-
structs there is high chance that the two scores covary
and, therefore, correlation between them will be inflated.
This inflated correlation could affect the results measure-
ment and the structural model analysis. Therefore, it is
important to ensure that the measurement is not suffer-
ing from CMB. There are different sources for CMB.
Schwarz et al., (2017) found four major sources: ambig-
uous or complex items, format of the scales and scale
anchors, item priming effects, and item embeddedness.
In this study, the measurement items of the survey
were mostly adapted from previous studies to make
sure that the scale and items are not causing any bias
in the results. In addition, we applied established CMB
tests to ensure that CMB is not an issue in our study.
According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff
(2003) and Campbell & Fiske (1959), CMB is an
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 59
important source of error in measurement that may
cause erroneous conclusions. To assess the presence of
the CMB in our measurement model we applied two
different approaches widely used in the literature. First,
we applied Harman’s single factor test suggested by Pod-
sakoff et al. (2003). Podsakoff et al. suggest that CMB
exists either when factor analysis produces a single fac-
tor; or a single factor accounts for the majority of covari-
ance measured among variables. The results of unrotated
factor analysis for all 52 items in our survey show that 12
factors account for 76.2% of the variance and the first
factor accounts for 38.8% of the total variance. Since
the first factor does not explain the majority of the vari-
ation according to Harman’s single factor test for CMB,
we conclude that CMB is not a major issue in our
measurement model.
To examine presence of CMB in our measurement
model, we also applied the procedure suggested by Pod-
sakoff et al. (2003) and Liang, Saraf, Hu, & Xue (2007).
The results revealed that CMB construct was not loaded
significantly but theoretical constructs were loaded sig-
nificantly (see Appendix E). Thus, CMB is not a serious
issue in this measurement model.
We applied the Gaussian Copula approach in PLS-
SEM suggested by Hult et al. (2018) to assess Endogene-
ity in our structural model. We used R package Compa-
nion to Applied Regression (car) to test possible
endogeneity and omitted variable bias. The Gaussian
Copula approach calculates Beta coefficients and p-
values for all possible omitted variables (called copula
variables). Endogeneity is an issue if any of the copula
coefficients are significant. According to Appendix F,
all the copula coefficients for all three dependent vari-
ables in our model were insignificant. Therefore, we
argue that endogeneity and omitted variable bias are
not serious issues in our study.
5.3. Structural model
In this study, we evaluated the structural model by exam-
ining the R-squares and path coefficient. The path coeffi-
cients explain the strength and the direction of the
construct relationships and the R-squares indicate the
research model’s predictive power (see Figure 2).
According to the results, overall perceived quality of
the smart service eco-system significantly affects satisfac-
tion (β = 0.527, p < 0.001) which is consistent with the
findings of the previous studies (e.g. Bock et al., 2005;
Wixom & Todd, 2005; Xu et al., 2013). The results also
support our claim about the positive influence of cogni-
tive dissonance reduction (β = 0.280, p < 0.001) and
intention to co-create (β = 0.161, p < 0.05) on users’ sat-
isfaction. Service quality and cognitive dissonance
60 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.
Figure 2. Structural model analysis results.
reduction and intention to co-create together account for
62% of variance in satisfaction. In addition, we found
that using cognitive dissonance reduction strategies (β
= 0.504, p < 0.001) significantly affect intention to co-cre-
ate and account for 28% of the variance in this variable.
Finally, we found users’ satisfaction (β = 0.559, p < 0.001)
and intention to co-create (β = 0.279, p < 0.001) posi-
tively influence intention to use the Uber smart service
(R2 = 57%). This study also controlled for the effect of
gender and experience of users with Uber over the
dependent variables in the model (see Table 3).
To have a better understanding of how Uber custo-
mers apply different strategies (change in attitude/behav-
iour/belief, acquire new information, reduce cognitive
dissonance importance, co-creation) to minimise per-
sonal safety risks, we applied different methods. First,
we normalised scores of the four strategies and ran K-
means cluster analysis in SPSS 24.0. The results of cluster
analysis revealed Uber customers apply all strategies
Table 3. Control variables.
Standardised Path
Control Variables Coefficient
Gender (Male = 0; Female = 1) -> Intention to 0.064 (NS)
Co-create
Gender (Male = 0; Female = 1) -> Satisfaction 0.066*
Gender (Male = 0; Female = 1) -> Intention to −0.007 (NS)
Use
Experience with Uber -> Intention to Co-create 0.116**
Experience with Uber -> Satisfaction 0.060*
Experience with Uber -> Intention to Use 0.114***
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; NS p > 0.05 (two-tailed significance).
across all clusters. Then we visualised the normalised
scores for those four strategies to find more support
for the cluster analysis result. Figure 3 summarises the
patterns of responses across different strategies. The
majority of scores are greater than 0.6. This finding
shows that the majority of Uber customers apply all
four strategies to protect themselves against possible
safety issues.
6. Discussion
This study explores three passive forms of dissonance
reduction strategies together with co-creation as an
interactive strategy to manage physical threats in the
Uber digital ecosystem. Our results have implications
for both practitioners and the academy. From a theoreti-
cal point of view, our work contributes to several areas
that have received little or no attention in information
systems and related literature. Theories such as expec-
tation confirmation theory have overwhelmingly sup-
ported that dissonance directly and negatively
influences satisfaction (e.g. Chou et al., 2010; Lin et al.,
2005; S. Yang et al., 2013). However, this post-experience
satisfaction is not necessarily just because of service
characteristics alone. Our research found that service sat-
isfaction is a combined assessment that encompasses
effects from service offerings, users’ participation, and
strategies to treat dissonance when it arises. Our work
is one of the first demonstrating that dissonance
reduction techniques are also strong predictors of

Figure 3. How Uber customers apply the four strategies.
satisfaction in addition to the quality of service provided
by the company.
Second, dissonance reduction strategies chosen by
customers, and their ability to implement these strategies
(a key predictor of co-creation in studies such as Dong,
Evans, & Zou (2008); Benlian (2013)) are also important
motivators of co-creation intention. Previous research
has shown that, active involvement of customers to
improve service features can reduce negative cognitive
dissonance (Sven Heidenreich et al., 2015). Our work
adds to the body of knowledge by suggesting that not
only a customer’s ability matters in the co-creation pro-
cess, but also the psychological or physical options
related to dissonance reduction techniques play an
important role in a customer’s assessment of opportu-
nities to co-create. Third, we also found that no cognitive
reduction strategy works alone. Users adopt multiple
reduction strategies at the same time, especially when a
safety issue arises. Empirical evidence of users employing
multiple reduction strategies is quite rare in the existing
research (Olson & Stone, 2005). But, our work sheds
light on the adoption of a multiple-strategy view (i.e. syn-
chronous view) by presenting that (a) the three reduction
strategies are relatively equal in their role to formulate
the more general concept of cognitive dissonance
reduction, and (b) this general concept of dissonance
reduction strongly affects intention to co-create and per-
ception on satisfaction.
Forth, there is a disparity in the focus of how service
quality is measured in the marketing field (Parasura-
man & Zeithaml, 2005) versus the IS perspective (Kas-
sim & Bojei, 2002). Marketing places more emphasis on
quality resulting from general services, while IS focuses
more about quality through interactions with systems.
Our study brings together both service and systems
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 61
aspects, and gives a holistic approach to the measure-
ment of service quality in ride-sharing apps. We com-
bine factors that were originally proposed by
Parasuraman et al. (1985) and more recent ones relat-
ing to systems such as security (Tan et al., 2013) and
assurance (Xu et al., 2013). In addition, we consider
the user, the technology and the organisation as part
of one digital ecosystem and study its impact on the
personal safety of users. Hence, the holistic view pre-
sented in the current study is crucial since just relying
on only one aspect (e.g. quality resulting from general
services) of service quality will result in missing key
components relating to ride-sharing apps. Another
theoretical contribution is that this study helps in oper-
ationalisation of ride-sharing app quality, which has
been lacking in the literature. To the best knowledge
of the authors, no study has measured the service qual-
ity aspect of ride-sharing apps.
Fifth, personal safety issues associated with the use of
ride-sharing apps has not yet received much attention by
IS researchers. In many cases, the economies of scale that
rise from using IT in the service domain diminishes con-
trol that service providers can exert over business pro-
cesses, employees, and users. A potential outcome from
this lack of control involves safety issues for service
users. Studies in the current literature talk about privacy,
law, regulations, technology, etc. (e.g. Davis, 2015; Posen,
2015; Witt et al., 2015). But no study addresses the per-
sonal safety issues related to ride-sharing apps. This
study fills the existing gap in the literature examining
how digital service ecosystems address safety issues.
Applying cognitive dissonance reduction strategies, we
ask service users to respond to potential safety issues.
Future research can apply the three dissonance reduction
strategies discussed in this study to evaluate digital
62 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.
system users’ reaction to the other types of threats, and in
other digital service platforms.
This study also has several implications for prac-
titioners. Improved understanding of customer satisfac-
tion will help digital service providers deliver better
customer experiences, and enhance their value chains.
If service providers recognise patterns of dissonance in
their customers, they can help resolve dissonance
quickly, resulting in improved customer experiences.
Co-creation gives service providers expanded opportu-
nities for innovation because groups of loyal customers
are contributing to idea pipelines. Thorough comprehen-
sion of digital system ecosystems will produce systems
that more closely align with customer expectations and
attitudes, and increase value throughout the ecosystem.
Our findings show that even if customers are not com-
pletely satisfied with a smart service system, the opportu-
nity of co-creation will prompt them to continue to use it
resulting in an ‘I Designed It Myself’ effect (Franke et al.,
2010). The ‘I Designed It Myself’ effect results from feel-
ings of accomplishment and perceived contributions by
customers towards product development. This is par-
ticularly important for digital service providers since it
will increase customer value, and reduce dissonance cre-
ated by the digital systems.
Practitioners could also benefit from an improved
understanding of their industry. Findings of this study
reveal that customers of smart ride-sharing services are
using different strategies to minimise cognitive disso-
nance. Providers who recognise this pattern could use
it to their advantage by implementing steps to address
personal safety issues faced by the user.
6.1. Limitations and future research
Our cross-sectional study addresses some aspects of how
multiple dissonance reduction strategies are compared
for their joint effects on co-creation and satisfaction in
smart service systems. Most previous studies focused
on dissonance reduction strategies separately (e.g.
McGrath, 2011; Voisin et al., 2013). Although an empiri-
cal study that treats IT, participants and service provi-
ders as key elements of a holistic smart service is quite
new in the realm of IT/IS centric studies, our findings
offer early insights into this symbiotic relationship. How-
ever, there is room for improvement in the future.
First, despite the fact that Uber is the largest service
provider in its category, our work reflects only insights
derived from Uber users. It does not necessarily cover
other forms of public and private transportation. There-
fore, generalisation into other forms of transportation
requires caution. Second, our respondents are mostly
young people. Although this is consistent with anecdotal
reports (e.g. Smith, 2016) that Uber’s user base tends to
be young adults, urbanities and college students, disso-
nance reduction strategies may vary across different
demographic groups. Third, we uncovered insights of
multiple dissonance reduction strategies through a sur-
vey. Therefore, we are also bound by the limitations
inherently derived from survey methodology. Future
studies may also consider other forms of data collection
from simultaneous adoption of multiple reduction strat-
egies. The simultaneous measurement of these three dis-
sonance reduction strategies could be a limitation of our
study because Uber users may apply these strategies in
different orders during their Uber experience. Our
cross-sectional study is not capable of measuring the
dynamics among these strategies. Although evidence
(e.g. Hinojosa et al. 2017) shows that CDT’s generalisa-
bility to different contexts is robust, we still suggest
that readers take a prudent strategy. This is because
our work reflects an integration of CDT and other perti-
nent constructs. Therefore, studying how our work
extends to other contexts could further help delineate
the generalisability of our model.
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the objective of this study was to explore
three research questions. First, the reaction of smart ser-
vice users to potential safety issues posed by smart ride-
sharing services. Second, dissonance reduction strategies
that would help reduce existing dissonance between
expected and perceived service quality. Finally, the
impact of those strategies on satisfaction and behaviour
of users of ride-sharing apps.
We used a scenario- based survey completed by more
than 400 participants and found support for all our
hypotheses. We found that service satisfaction is a com-
bined assessment that encompasses effects from service
offerings, users’ participation, and strategies to treat dis-
sonance when it arises. In addition, our findings show
that not only a customer’s ability matters in the co-cre-
ation process, but also the psychological or physical
options related to dissonance reduction techniques play
an important role in a customer’s assessment of opportu-
nities to co-create. We also found that no cognitive
reduction strategy works alone. Users adopt multiple
reduction strategies at the same time, especially when a
safety issue arises. We also operationalised ride-sharing
app quality, which has been lacking in the existing litera-
ture. Finally, this study not only fills the existing gap in
the literature examining how digital service ecosystems
address safety issues but also is the first to demonstrate
that dissonance reduction techniques are also strong pre-
dictors of satisfaction in addition to the quality of service.

This study contributes to the research on both smart ser-
vice systems and cognitive dissonance reduction
strategies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Agarwal, R., and V. Venkatesh. 2002. “Assessing a Firm’s web
Presence: a Heuristic Evaluation Procedure for the
Measurement of Usability.” Information Systems Research
13 (2): 168–186.
Al Hasib, A. 2009. “Threats of Online Social Networks.”
IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and
Network Security 9 (11): 288–293.
Amirkiaee, S. Y., and N. Evangelopoulos. 2018. “Why do
People Rideshare? An Experimental Study.”
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour 55: 9–24.
Anderson, E., C. Fornell, and D. Lehmann. 1994. “Customer
Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings
From Sweden.” The Journal of Marketing 58 (3): 53–66.
Anderson, E., and M. Sullivan. 1993. “The Antecedents and
Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms.”
Marketing Science 12 (2): 125–143.
Barnes, S., and R. Vidgen. 2001. “An Evaluation of Cyber-
Bookshops: The WebQual Method.” International Journal
of Electronic 6 (1): 11–30.
Barney, J. B., and A. M. Arikan. 2001. “The Resource-Based
View: Origins and Implications.” The Blackwell Handbook
of Strategic Management 5: 124–188.
Barrett, M., E. Davidson, and S. L. Vargo. 2015. “Service
Innovation in the Digital age: key Contributions and
Future Directions.” MIS Quarterly 39 (1): 135–154.
Bauer, H., T. Falk, and M. Hammerschmidt. 2006.
“eTransQual: A Transaction Process-Based Approach for
Capturing Service Quality in Online Shopping.” Journal of
Business Research 59 (7): 866–875.
Benlian, A. 2013. “Effect Mechanisms of Perceptual
Congruence Between Information Systems Professionals
and Users on Satisfaction with Service.” Journal of
Management Information Systems 29 (4): 63–96.
Bhattacherjee, A. 2001. “An Empirical Analysis of the
Antecedents of Electronic Commerce Service
Continuance.” Decision Support Systems 32 (2): 201–214.
Bibri, S. E. 2015. The Shaping of Ambient Intelligence and the
Internet of Things. Amsterdam: Atlantis Press.
Bock, G.-W., R. W. Zmud, Y.-G. Kim, and J.-N. Lee. 2005.
“Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing:
Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-
Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate.” Mis
Quarterly 29 (1): 87–111.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Vol. 16.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brijball, S. 2001. “Cognitive Dissonance: the Adoption of
Dissonance Reduction Strategies.” Journal of Industrial
Psychology 27 (1): 17–24.
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 63
Campbell, D. T., and D. W. Fiske. 1959. “Convergent and
Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod
Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56 (2): 81–105.
Chae, M., J. Kim, H. Kim, and H. Ryu. 2002. “Information
Quality for Mobile Internet Services: A Theoretical Model
with Empirical Validation.” Electronic Markets 12 (1): 38–46.
Chandler, J. D., and S. L. Vargo. 2011. “Contextualization and
Value-in-Context: How Context Frames Exchange.”
Marketing Theory 11 (1): 35–49.
Chin, W. W. 1998. “Commentary: Issues and Opinion on
Structural Equation Modeling.” MIS Quarterly 22 (1):
vii–xvi.
Chiu, C., C. Chiu, and H. Chang. 2007. “Examining the
Integrated Influence of Fairness and Quality on Learners’
Satisfaction and Web-Based Learning Continuance
Intention.” Information Systems Journal 17 (3): 271–287.
Chou, S.-W., H.-T. Min, Y.-C. Chang, and C.-T. Lin. 2010.
“Understanding Continuance Intention of Knowledge
Creation Using Extended Expectation–Confirmation
Theory: an Empirical Study of Taiwan and China Online
Communities.” Behaviour & Information Technology 29
(6): 557–570.
Collier, J., and C. Bienstock. 2006. “Measuring Service Quality
in e-Retailing.” Journal of Service Research 8 (3): 260–275.
Cronin, J. Jr, and S. A. Taylor. 1992. “Measuring Service
Quality: A Reexamination and Extension.” The Journal of
Marketing 56 (3): 55–68.
Davis, J. 2015. “Drive at Your own Risk: Uber Violates Unfair
Competition Laws by Misleading Uberx Drivers About
Their Insurance Covergae.” Boston College Law Review 56:
1097–1142.
Devaraj, S., M. Fan, and R. Kohli. 2002. “Antecedents of B2C
Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating e-
Commerce Metrics.” Information Systems Research 13 (3):
316–333.
Dong, B., K. R. Evans, and S. Zou. 2008. “The Effects of
Customer Participation in co-Created Service Recovery.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36 (1): 123–
137.
Dyke, T. Van, Kappelman, L., & Prybutok, V. (1997).
Measuring Information Systems Service Quality: Concerns
on the use of the SERVQUAL Questionnaire. MIS
Quarterly, 21(2), 195–208.
Ebersold, K., and T. Hartford. 2016. “The Internet of Things : a
Cause for Ethical Concern.” Issues in Information Systems
17 (4): 145–151.
Elsner, W. 2007. “Why Meso? On “Aggregation” and
“Emergence”, and why and how the Meso Level is
Essential in Social Economics.” Forum for Social
Economics 36 (1): 1–16.
Etgar, M. 2008. “A Descriptive Model of the Consumer co-
Production Process.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 36 (1): 97–108.
Festinger, L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson: Stanford university press.
Fornell, C., and D. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1): 39–50.
Franke, N., M. Schreier, and U. Kaiser. 2010. “The “I Designed
it Myself” Effect in Mass Customization.” Management
Science 56 (1): 125–140.
64 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.
Frow, P., J. R. McColl-Kennedy, and A. Payne. 2016. “Co-cre-
ation Practices: Their Role in Shaping a Health Care
Ecosystem.” Industrial Marketing Management 56: 24–39.
Frow, P., J. R. McColl-Kennedy, A. Payne, and R. Govind.
2019. “Service Ecosystem Well-Being: Conceptualization
and Implications for Theory and Practice.” European
Journal of Marketing 53 (12).
Gebauer, J., J. Fuller, and R. Pezzei. 2013. “The Dark and the
Bright Side of co-Creation: Triggers of Member Behavior
in Online Innovation Communities.” Journal of Business
Research 66 (9): 1516–1527. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.
013.
Gefen, D. 2002. “Customer Loyalty in e-Commerce.” Journal
of the Association for Information Systems 3 (1): 27–51.
Gosling, P., M. Denizeau, and D. Oberlé. 2006. “Denial of
Responsibility: a new Mode of Dissonance Reduction.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (5): 722–
733. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.722.
Grissemann, U. S., and N. E. Stokburger-Sauer. 2012.
“Customer co-Creation of Travel Services: The Role of
Company Support and Customer Satisfaction with the co-
Creation Performance.” Tourism Management 33 (6):
1483–1492.
Grönroos, C., and P. Voima. 2013. “Critical Service Logic:
Making Sense of Value Creation and co-Creation.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41 (2): 133–
150.
Gummesson, E., and C. Mele. 2010. “Marketing as Value co-
Creation Through Network Interaction and Resource
Integration.” Journal of Business Market Management 4
(4): 1–18.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black.
1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall.
Hardyman, W., K. L. Daunt, and M. Kitchener. 2015. “Value
co-Creation Through Patient Engagement in Health Care:
a Micro-Level Approach and Research Agenda.” Public
Management Review 17 (1): 90–107.
Harmeling, C. M., J. W. Moffett, M. J. Arnold, and B. D.
Carlson. 2017. “Toward a Theory of Customer
Engagement Marketing.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 45 (3): 312–335.
Heidenreich, S., and M. Handrich. 2015. “Adoption of
Technology-Based Services: the Role of Customers’
Willingness to co-Create.” Journal of Service Management
26 (1): 44–71.
Heidenreich, Sven, K. Wittkowski, M. Handrich, and T. Falk.
2015. “The Dark Side of Customer co-Creation:
Exploring the Consequences of Failed co-Created
Services.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43
(3): 279–296.
Hinojosa, A. S., W. L. Gardner, H. J. Walker, C. Cogliser, and
D. Gullifor. 2017. “A Review of Cognitive Dissonance
Theory in Management Research: Opportunities for
Further Development.” Journal of Management 43 (1):
170–199.
Hoyer, W. D., R. Chandy, M. Dorotic, M. Krafft, and S. S.
Singh. 2010. “Consumer Cocreation in new Product
Development.” Journal of Service Research 13 (3): 283–296.
Hsu, H. 2006. “An Empirical Study of web Site Quality,
Customer Value, and Customer Satisfaction Based on e-
Shop.” The Business Review 5 (1): 190–193.
Hulland, J. 1999. “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in
Strategic Management Research: a Review of Four Recent
Studies.” Strategic Management Journal 20 (2): 195–204.
Hult, G. T. M., J. F. Hair Jr, D. Proksch, M. Sarstedt, A.
Pinkwart, and C. M. Ringle. 2018. “Addressing
Endogeneity in International Marketing Applications of
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling.”
Journal of International Marketing 26 (3): 1–21.
Jaakkola, E., and M. Alexander. 2014. “The Role of Customer
Engagement Behavior in Value co-Creation: a Service
System Perspective.” Journal of Service Research 17 (3):
247–261.
Jiang, JingJing. 2019. More Americans are using ride-hailing
apps. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2019/01/04/more-americans-are-using-ride-
hailing-apps/.
Jiang, J. J., G. Klein, and C. Carr. 2002. “Measuring
Information System Service Quality: SERVQUAL From
the Other Side.” MIS Quarterly 26 (2): 145–166.
Kassim, N., and J. Bojei. 2002. “Service Quality: Gaps in the
Malaysian Telemarketing Industry.” Journal of Business
Research 55 (10): 845–852.
Kettinger, W. J., J. Smith, et al. 2009. “Understanding the
Consequences of Information Systems Service Quality on
IS Service Reuse.” Information & Management 46 (6):
335–341.
Kim, M., M. Park, and D. Jeong. 2004. “The Effects of
Customer Satisfaction and Switching Barrier on Customer
Loyalty in Korean Mobile Telecommunication Services.”
Telecommunications Policy 28 (2): 145–159.
Kuo, Y. 2003. “A Study on Service Quality of Virtual
Community Websites.” Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence 14 (4): 461–473.
Lee, G., and H. Lin. 2005. “Customer Perceptions of e-Service
Quality in Online Shopping.” International Journal of Retail
& Distribution 33 (2): 161–176.
Lemke, F., M. Clark, and H. Wilson. 2011. “Customer
Experience Quality: an Exploration in Business and
Consumer Contexts Using Repertory Grid Technique.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39 (6): 846–
869.
Levy, S. 2014. “Does Usage Level of Online Services Matter
to Customers’ Bank Loyalty?” Journal of Services
Marketing Iss Journal of Services Marketing Journal of
Services Marketing Iss Journal of Consumer Marketing 28
(4): 292–299.
Liang, Y. J. 2016. “Reading to Make a Decision or to Reduce
Cognitive Dissonance? The Effect of Selecting and
Reading Online Reviews From a Post-Decision Context.”
Computers in Human Behavior 64: 463–471.
Liang, H., N. Saraf, Q. Hu, and Y. Xue. 2007. “Assimilation of
Enterprise Systems: the Effect of Institutional Pressures and
the Mediating Role of top Management.” MIS Quarterly 31
(1): 59–87.
Lieberman, M. D., K. N. Ochsner, D. T. Gilbert, and D. L. Scha.
2016. “Do Amnesics Exhibit Cognitive Dissonance
Reduction? The Role of Explicit Memory and Attention in
Attitude Change.” Psychological Science 12 (2): 135–140.
Lin, C. S., S. Wu, and R. J. Tsai. 2005. “Integrating Perceived
Playfulness Into Expectation-Confirmation Model for web
Portal Context.” Information & Management 42 (5): 683–
693.

Loiacono, E., and R. Watson. 2007. “WebQual: An Instrument
for Consumer Evaluation of web Sites.” International
Journal Of 11 (3): 51–87.
Lusch, R. F., S. L. Vargo, and A. Gustafsson. 2016. “Fostering a
Trans-Disciplinary Perspectives of Service Ecosystems.”
Journal of Business Research 69 (8): 2957–2963.
Maglio, P. P. 2015. “Editorial—Smart Service Systems,
Human-Centered Service Systems, and the Mission of
Service Science.” Service Science 7 (2): ii–iii.
Mao, W., and H. Oppewal. 2010. “Did I Choose the Right
University? How Post-Purchase Information Affects
Cognitive Dissonance, Satisfaction and Perceived Service
Quality.” Australasian Marketing Journal 18 (1): 28–35.
McGrath, A. 2011. Changing or defending our behaviour: The
role of attitude importance and choice in the arousal and
reduction of cognitive dissonance. Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada.
McKinney, V., K. Yoon, and F. Zahedi. 2002. “The
Measurement of web-Customer Satisfaction: An
Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach.” Information
Systems Research 13 (3): 296–315.
Merz, M. A., L. Zarantonello, and S. Grappi. 2018. “How
Valuable are Your Customers in the Brand Value co-
Creation Process? The Development of a Customer Co-
Creation Value (CCCV) Scale.” Journal of Business
Research 82: 79–89.
Mirabito, A. M., and L. L. Berry. 2015. “You say you Want a
Revolution? Drawing on Social Movement Theory to
Motivate Transformative Change.” Journal of Service
Research 18 (3): 336–350.
Moores, T., and J. Chang. 2006. “Ethical Decision Making in
Software Piracy: Initial Development and Test of a Four-
Component Model.” MIS Quarterly 30 (1): 167–180.
Nunnally, C., and H. Bernstein. 1978. Psychometric Theory.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. 1980. “A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and
Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.” Journal of
Marketing Research 17: 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. 2010. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the
Consumer. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Olson, J. M., and J. Stone. 2005. “The Handbook of Attitudes.”
In The Handbook of Attitudes, 173–221. New York:
Psychology Press.
O’Neill, M., C. Wright, and F. Fitz. 2001. “Quality Evaluation
in on-Line Service Environments: an Application of the
Importance-Performance Measurement Technique.”
Managing Service Quality: An 11 (6): 402–417.
Palmer, J. 2002. “Web Site Usability, Design, and Performance
Metrics.” Information Systems Research 13 (2): 151–167.
Parasuraman, A., and V. Zeithaml. 2005. “ES-QUAL a
Multiple-Item Scale for Assessing Electronic Service
Quality.” Journal of Service 7 (3): 213–233.
Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml, and L. Berry. 1985. “A
Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications
for Future Research.” The Journal of Marketing 49: 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., V. Zeithaml, and L. Berry. 1988. “Servqual: A
Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perception of
Service Quality.” Journal of Retailing 64 (1): 12–40.
Park, C., and Y. Kim. 2008. The effect of information satisfac-
tion and relational benefit on consumer’s online shopping
site commitment. In Web technologies for commerce and
services (pp. 149–169). Information Science Reference.
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 65
Park, I., R. Sharman, and H. R. Rao. 2015. “Disaster Experience
and Hospital Information Systems: An Examination of
Perceived Information Assurance, Risk, Resilience, and
HIS Usefulness.” MIS Quarterly Quarterly 39 (2): 317–344.
Payne, A. F., K. Storbacka, and P. Frow. 2008. “Managing the
co-Creation of Value.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 36 (1): 83–96. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0.
Pfeffer-Gillett, A. 2016. “When “Disruption” Collides with
Accountability: Holding Ridesharing Companies Liable for
Acts of Their Drivers.” California Law Review 104 (1):
233–268.
Pitt, L., R. Watson, and C. Kavan. 1997. “Measuring
Information Systems Service Quality: Concerns for a
Complete Canvas.” MIS Quarterly 21 (2): 209–221.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P.
Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral
Research: a Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies.” The Journal of Applied
Psychology 88 (5): 879–903.
Posen, H. A. 2015. “Ridesharing in the Sharing Economy:
Should Regulators Impose Uber Regulations on Uber?”
Iowa Law Review 101: 405–433.
Prahalad, C. K., and V. Ramaswamy. 2004. “Co-creation
Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation.”
Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (3): 5–14.
Rahman, M., S. Bose, M. M. Babu, B. L. Dey, S. K. Roy, and B.
Binsardi. 2019. “Value co-Creation as a Dialectical Process:
Study in Bangladesh and Indian Province of West Bengal.”
Information Systems Frontiers 21 (3): 527–545.
Ranjan, K. R., and S. Read. 2016. “Value co-Creation: Concept
and Measurement.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 44 (3): 290–315.
Reid, L., P. Sutton, and C. Hunter. 2010. “Theorizing the Meso
Level: the Household as a Crucible of pro-Environmental
Behaviour.” Progress in Human Geography 34 (3): 309–327.
Roberts, J., and L. Mok. 2011. Executive summary: New skills
for the new IT. https://www.gartner.com/doc/1855718?ref=
SiteSearch&sthkw=technology enabled services&fnl =
search&srcId=1-3478922254.
Roggeveen, A. L., M. Tsiros, and D. Grewal. 2012.
“Understanding the co-Creation Effect: When Does
Collaborating with Customers Provide a Lift to Service
Recovery?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
40 (6): 771–790.
Ruiter, R. A. C., C. Abraham, and G. Kok. 2001. “Scary Warnings
and Rational Precautions: A Review of the Psychology of
Fear Appeals.” Psychology and Health 16 (6): 613–630.
Rust, R., and A. Zahorik. 1993. “Customer Satisfaction,
Customer Retention, and Market Share.” Journal of
Retailing 69 (2): 193–215.
Sanchez-Fernandez, R., and M. A. Iniesta-Bonillo. 2007. “The
Concept of Perceived Value: a Systematic Review of the
Research.” Marketing Theory 7 (4): 427–451.
Santos, J. 2003. “E-service Quality: a Model of Virtual Service
Quality Dimensions.” Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal 13 (3): 233–246.
Schenk, N. J., H. C. Moll, and A. J. M. S. Uiterkamp. 2007.
“Meso-level Analysis, the Missing Link in Energy
Strategies.” Energy Policy 35 (3): 1505–1516.
Schreier, M. 2006. “The Value Increment of Mass-Customized
Products: an Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 5 (4): 317–327.
66 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.
Schubert, P. 2002. “Extended web Assessment Method
(EWAM): Evaluation of Electronic Commerce
Applications From the Customer’s Viewpoint.”
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 7 (2): 51–80.
Schwarz, A., T. Rizzuto, C. Carraher-Wolverton, J. L. Roldán,
and R. Barrera-Barrera. 2017. “Examining the Impact and
Detection of the Urban Legend of Common Method
Bias.” ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for
Advances in Information Systems 48 (1): 93–119.
Sharifi, S. S., and M. R. Esfidani. 2014. “The Impacts of
Relationship Marketing on Cognitive Dissonance,
Satisfaction, and Loyalty the Mediating Role of Trust and
Cognitive Dissonance.” International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 42 (6): 553–575.
Shchiglik, C., and S. Barnes. 2004. “Evaluating Website Quality
in the Airline Industry.” Journal of Computer Information
Systems 44 (3): 17–25.
Shim, J., Y. Shin, and L. Nottingham. 2002. “Retailer web Site
Influence on Customer Shopping: Exploratory Study on key
Factors of Customer Satisfaction.” Journal of the Association
for Information Systems 3 (1): 53–76.
Shultz, T. R., and M. R. Lepper. 1996. “Cognitive Dissonance
Reduction as Constraint Satisfaction.” Psychological
Review 103 (2): 219–240.
Simon, L., J. Greenberg, and J. W. Brehm. 1995.
“Trivialization: the Forgotten Mode of Dissonance
Reduction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
68 (2): 247–260.
Siponen, M., and A. Vance. 2010. “Neutralization: new
Insights Into the Problem of Employee Information
Systems Security Policy Violations.” MIS Quarterly 34 (3):
487–502.
Smith, A. 2016. Shared, collaborative and on demand: The new
digital economy. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/05/19/
on-demand-ride-hailing-apps/.
Snyder, T. 2020. Back to school statistics. Institute of
Educatuion Science. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.
asp?id=372.
Song, J., J. Kim, D. Jones, J. Baker, and W. Chin. 2014.
“Application Discoverability and User Satisfaction in
Mobile Application Stores: An Environmental Psychology
Perspective.” Decision Support Systems 59: 37–51.
Surjadjaja, H., S. Ghosh, and J. Antony. 2003. “Determining
and Assessing the Determinants of e-Service Operations.”
Managing Service Quality 13 (1): 39–53.
Susarla, A., A. Barua, and A. B. Whinston. 2003.
“Understanding the Service Component of Application
Service Provision: An Empirical Analysis of Satisfaction
with ASP Services.” MIS Quarterly 27 (1): 91–123.
Taillard, M., L. D. Peters, J. Pels, and C. Mele. 2016. “The Role
of Shared Intentions in the Emergence of Service
Ecosystems.” Journal of Business Research 69 (8): 2972–
2980.
Tan, C., I. Benbasat, and R. Cenfetelli. 2013. “IT-mediated
Customer Service Content and Delivery in Electronic
Governments: An Empirical Investigation of the
Antecedents of Service Quality.” MIS Quarterly 37 (1):
77–109.
Turel, O., and A. Serenko. 2006. “Satisfaction with Mobile
Services in Canada: An Empirical Investigation.”
Telecommunications Policy 30 (5): 314–331.
Van Exel, M., E. Dias, and S. Fruijtier. 2010. The impact of
crowdsourcing on spatial data quality indicators.
Proceedings of GiScience.
Vargo, S. L., and R. F. Lusch. 2017. “Service-dominant Logic
2025.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 34
(1): 46–67.
Vega-Vazquez, M., M. Ángeles Revilla-Camacho, and F. J.
Cossío-Silva. 2013. “The Value co-Creation Process as a
Determinant of Customer Satisfaction.” Management
Decision 51 (10): 1945–1953.
Voisin, D., J. Stone, and M. Becker. 2013. “The Impact of the
Antitobacco Norm on the Selected Mode of Cognitive
Dissonance Reduction.” Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 43 (1): 57–67.
Voss, C., H. Perks, R. Sousa, L. Witell, and N. V. Wünderlich.
2016. “Reflections on Context in Service Research.” Journal
of Service Management 27 (1): 30–36.
Wang, Y.-S., H.-H. Lin, and P. Luarn. 2006. “Predicting
Consumer Intention to use Mobile Service.” Information
Systems Journal 16 (2): 157–179.
Wang, Y., H. Lo, and Y. Yang. 2004. “An Integrated
Framework for Service Quality, Customer Value,
Satisfaction: Evidence From China’s Telecommunication
Industry.” Information Systems Frontiers 6 (4): 325–340.
Witt, A., N. Suzor, and P. Wikström. 2015. “Regulating Ride-
Sharing in the Peer Economy.” Communication Research
and Practice 1 (2): 174–190.
Wixom, B. H., and P. A. Todd. 2005. “A Theoretical
Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology
Acceptance.” Information Systems Research 16 (1): 85–102.
Xu, J., I. Benbasat, and R. Cenfetelli. 2013. “Integrating Service
Quality with System and Information Quality: an Empirical
Test in the e-Service Context.” Mis Quarterly 37 (3): 777–
794.
Yang, Z., S. Cai, Z. Zhou, and N. Zhou. 2005. “Development
and Validation of an Instrument to Measure User
Perceived Service Quality of Information Presenting web
Portals.” Information & Management 42 (4): 575–589.
Yang, S., Y. Lu, and P. Y. K. Chau. 2013. “Why do Consumers
Adopt Online Channel? An Empirical Investigation of two
Channel Extension Mechanisms.” Decision Support
Systems 54 (2): 858–869.
Zeithaml, V., and A. Parasuraman. 2002. “Service Quality
Delivery Through web Sites: A Critical Review of Extant
Knowledge.” Journal of the Academy 30 (4): 362–375.
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 67

Appendices
Appendix A. Summary of dimensions used in measuring IS service quality

Scope of the
Authors Study Dimensions of Service Quality Used Theory
Agarwal & Venkatesh e-business . Content Microsoft Usability
(2002) . Ease of Use Guidelines
. Promotion
. Made for the Medium
. Emotion
Barnes & Vidgen (2001) e-business . Tangibles SERVQUAL
. Reliability
. Responsiveness
. Assurance
. Empathy
Devaraj, Fan, & Kohli e-business . Ease of Use Technology
(2002) . Usefulness Acceptance
. Asset Specificity Model,
. Uncertainty Transaction
. Empathy Cost Analysis and
. Reliability SERVQUAL
. Responsiveness
. Assurance
Gefen (2002) e-business . Tangibles SERVQUAL
. Reliability
. Responsiveness
. Assurance
. Empathy
Jiang, Klein, & Carr Information . Reliability SERVQUAL
(2002) Systems . Responsiveness
. Assurance
. Empathy
Kim, Park, & Jeong e-business . Reliability Information
(2004) . Responsiveness Quality and System Quality
. Assurance and SERVQUAL
. Empathy
McKinney, Yoon, & e-business . IQ Expectations [Relevance, Understandability, Reliability, Adequacy, Scope, Information
Zahedi (2002) Usefulness] Quality and System Quality
. SQ Expectations [Access, Usability, Entertainment,
. Hyperlinks, Navigation, Interactivity]
Palmer (2002) e-business . Download Delay None
. Navigation/Organisation
. Interactivity
. Responsiveness
. Information/Content
Schubert (2002) e-business . Ease of Use Criteria Technology
. Usefulness Criteria Acceptance
. Trust Criteria Model
Shchiglik & Barnes e-business . Domain Specific Dimension Barnes & Vidgen’s (2001)
(2004) . Web Information Quality WebQual
. Web Interaction Quality
. Web Design Quality
Shim, Shin, & e-business . Ease of Contact None
Nottingham (2002) . Customer Service Information
. Ease of Access of Product Information
Tan, Benbasat, & e-Government . Service Content Quality (Requirements, Acquisition, Ownership) None
Cenfetelli (2013) . Service Delivery Quality (Efficient IT Mediated Service Delivery- Accessibility,
Navigability, Interactivity, Interoperability, Adaptability, Security)

Appendix B. Measurement items

Construct Item Source Survey Item

Accessibility ACC1 Tan et al. (2013) I do not need to perform complicated technical tasks in order to access the Uber app to
perform transactions.
ACC2 I do not face any difficulty in accessing the Uber app using my phone to perform
transactions.
ACC3 I do not encounter any problems in accessing the Uber app to perform transactions.
Security SEC1 Tan et al. (2013) I believe that the Uber is safe.

(Continued )
68 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.

Continued.
Construct Item Source Survey Item
SEC2 The Uber has procedures in place to ensure my personal security.
SEC3 I feel safe when I use the Uber.
SEC4 I trust that no one outside the Uber will be able to access my personal information while
using Uber.
Responsiveness RES1 Parasuraman et al. The Uber app provides me with convenient options to quickly order a cab.
RES2 (2005) The Uber app handles my requests of ordering a cab in a timely manner.
RES3 The Uber app fulfils my requests in a timely manner.
Reliability REL1 Xu et al. (2013) The Uber operates reliably whenever I need it.
REL2 The Uber performs reliably whenever I need it.
REL3 The operation of the Uber is dependable whenever I need it.
Assurance ASSU1 Xu et al. (2013) I feel confident about my decision to use the Uber.
ASSU2 I feel safe in my interaction with the Uber.
ASSU3 The Uber has answers to questions that I have had.
Tangibles TAN1 Xu et al. (2013) The Uber is up-to-date.
TAN2 The Uber is visually appealing.
TAN3 The Uber is neat in appearance.
TAN4 The Uber is professionally appealing.
TAN5 The look and style of the Uber is consistent with the services Uber provides.
Change in Behavior/Belief/ CHAN1 New Items I would cut down my use of Uber if threats continue.
Attitude CHAN2 I will consider how to protect myself if threats continue.
CHAN3 I will use Uber less.
CHAN4 Using Uber is less safe than public transportation.
CHAN5 I am sure Uber will do something to resolve threat issues promptly.
CHAN6 It is still OK to take Uber once in a while.
CHAN7 Uber is a trustworthy company.
CHAN8 In general, Uber is a convenient choice for my transportation needs.
Acquire New Information ACQ1 New Items I trust that Uber will do something to protect the safety of their customers.
ACQ2 There are ways that I can protect myself if threats continue.
ACQ3 I am confident that I have ways to deter or avoid threats.
ACQ4 I usually take safety precautions when riding Uber.
Reduce Cognitive Importance IMP1 New Items The likelihood of a serious threat happening to me is quite low.
IMP2 Even if a serious threat happens, I believe I will find ways to ease the situation in a timely
manner.
IMP3 The threats mentioned are isolated events and unlikely to happen again.
IMP4 The risk of threats with Uber is not worse than a similar risk on public transportation.
IMP5 I don’t take Uber that often so it is unlikely I will run into any threat.
Satisfaction SAT1 Xu et al. (2013) Overall, the service I received from the Uber was very satisfying.
SAT2 I am very satisfied with the service I received from the Uber.
SAT3 In terms of the cab ordering process, the service provided by the Uber was very
satisfying.
SAT4 In general, I am happy with my experience with the Uber.
SAT5 I am content with my involvement and participation in the Uber.
Intention to CO- Xu et al. (2013) It is likely that I will help Uber to deliver more value to customers.
Co-create CR1
CO- If I have a chance, I will help Uber deliver more value to customers.
CR2
CO- I would consider helping Uber create more value for customers.
CR3
CO- There is a strong likelihood that I will help Uber create more value for customers.
CR4
CO- I will continue to make suggestions to improve Uber services.
CR5
Intention to Use Smart Service USE1 Xu et al. (2013) Next time I need to order a cab, I would like to use Uber.
USE2 Assuming I have access to Uber, I intend to use it to order a cab in the future.
USE3 Given that I have access to Uber, I predict that I would use it to order a cab in the future.
USE4 Wang et al. (2006) For future transportation needs, I would use Uber.

Appendix C. Measurement reliability and validity

Cronbach’s Composite
Construct AVE Alpha Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Accessibility 0.83 0.90 0.94 0.91
2. Security 0.72 0.80 0.88 0.53 0.85
3. Responsiveness 0.86 0.92 0.95 0.56 0.49 0.93
4. Reliability 0.73 0.81 0.89 0.41 0.55 0.52 0.85
5. Assurance 0.76 0.84 0.91 0.49 0.47 0.68 0.69 0.87
6. Tangibles 0.83 0.90 0.94 0.53 0.63 0.62 0.51 0.64 0.91
7. Change in Behavior/ 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.42 0.49 0.55 0.50 0.65 0.61 0.86
Belief /Attitude
0.70 0.74 0.82 0.32 0.52 0.44 0.49 0.55 0.53 0.69 0.84

(Continued )
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 69

Continued.
Cronbach’s Composite
Construct AVE Alpha Reliability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
8. Acquire New
Information
9. Reduce Cognitive 0.75 0.83 0.88 0.15 0.34 0.31 0.45 0.44 0.36 0.40 0.50 0.87
Importance
10. Satisfaction 0.81 0.94 0.95 0.51 0.61 0.61 0.52 0.65 0.66 0.71 0.58 0.45 0.90
11. Intention to 0.83 0.95 0.96 0.17 0.39 0.30 0.43 0.43 0.37 0.47 0.51 0.44 0.41 0.91
Co-create
12. Intention to Use 0.74 0.91 0.93 0.38 0.51 0.47 0.51 0.61 0.54 0.56 0.54 0.53 0.70 0.53 0.86
Smart Service

Appendix D. Cross loading of measures (varimax rotation)

Construct Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Accessibility ACC1 0.79 0.12 0.19 0.16 −0.01 0.18 0.03 0.10 −0.01 0.11 0.02 0.12
ACC2 0.82 0.21 0.18 0.13 0.06 0.21 0.08 0.06 −0.03 0.19 0.02 0.08
ACC3 0.81 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.05 0.23 0.11 0.01 −0.01 0.19 0.06 0.10
2. Security SEC1 0.14 0.76 0.06 0.17 0.11 0.12 −0.06 0.09 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.24
SEC2 0.07 0.74 0.02 0.19 0.12 0.13 −0.01 0.19 0.09 0.10 0.18 0.16
SEC3 0.16 0.71 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.11 −0.13 0.09 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.22
SEC4 0.07 0.71 0.21 −0.07 −0.02 0.17 0.08 −0.04 0.17 0.22 0.21 −0.01
3. Responsive-ness RES1 0.24 0.21 0.77 0.18 0.07 0.25 0.14 0.10 0.03 0.18 −0.03 0.23
RES2 0.21 0.20 0.75 0.19 0.10 0.26 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.24 0.00 0.15
RES3 0.26 0.18 0.69 0.23 0.06 0.30 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.23 0.03 0.14
4. Reliability REL1 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.68 0.06 0.28 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.26 0.09 0.08
REL2 0.22 0.18 0.30 0.67 0.13 0.29 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.24 0.13 0.10
REL3 0.24 0.31 0.17 0.69 0.04 0.28 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.22 0.11 0.04
5. Assurance ASSU1 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.31 0.61 0.34 −0.01 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.11 0.27
ASSU2 0.14 0.22 0.09 0.37 0.77 0.23 −0.09 0.06 0.08 0.21 0.16 0.24
ASSU3 0.10 0.18 −0.04 0.29 0.78 0.24 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.22 0.13
6. Tangibles TAN1 0.19 0.24 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.69 0.09 0.12 0.06 0.15 0.04 0.18
TAN2 0.12 0.19 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.74 0.05 0.13 0.04 0.16 0.13 0.17
TAN3 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.10 0.74 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.25 0.13 0.13
TAN4 0.17 0.20 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.79 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.20 0.15 0.12
TAN5 0.21 0.20 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.72 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.23 0.17 0.21
7.Change in Behavior/Belief CHAN1 0.11 −0.03 0.15 0.02 0.04 −0.01 0.87 0.11 −0.09 0.01 −0.02 −0.03
/Attitude CHAN2 0.15 −0.07 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.10 0.65 0.38 −0.08 0.06 0.03 0.12
CHAN3 −0.04 0.02 0.02 −0.02 0.00 −0.01 0.88 −0.03 −0.05 −0.03 −0.04 −0.07
CHAN4 0.11 −0.04 −0.20 0.04 0.21 0.06 0.61 −0.32 0.11 −0.01 0.11 −0.15
CHAN5 0.04 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.21 0.15 0.70 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.08
CHAN6 0.09 −0.05 0.13 0.13 −0.07 0.25 0.65 0.29 0.20 0.17 0.08 0.37
CHAN7 0.02 0.32 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.70 0.05 0.27 0.33 0.18 0.17
CHAN8 0.17 0.13 0.20 0.19 0.34 0.22 0.74 0.00 0.23 0.28 0.17 0.27
8. Acquire New Information ACQ1 −0.01 0.35 0.13 0.02 0.55 0.20 0.11 0.74 0.13 0.24 0.16 0.15
ACQ2 0.18 0.15 0.14 −0.07 0.29 0.21 0.05 0.66 0.14 0.22 0.12 0.09
ACQ3 0.09 0.16 0.09 −0.04 0.32 0.12 0.02 0.68 0.26 0.11 0.15 0.08
ACQ4 −0.02 0.10 −0.06 0.18 −0.15 0.22 0.21 0.67 0.01 0.10 0.25 −0.06
9. Reduce Cognitive Importance IMP1 0.08 0.08 0.15 −0.06 0.14 0.04 −0.13 −0.05 0.76 0.02 0.14 0.17
IMP2 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.30 0.01 −0.09 0.21 0.67 0.15 0.22 0.07
IMP3 −0.08 0.18 −0.07 0.09 0.12 0.03 −0.07 −0.05 0.73 0.03 0.32 0.06
IMP4 0.02 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.03 −0.14 0.13 0.65 0.08 0.13 0.24
IMP5 −0.06 0.10 −0.13 0.07 −0.14 0.14 0.22 0.11 0.66 0.09 −0.07 −0.06
10. Satisfaction SAT1 0.19 0.23 0.25 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.02 0.11 0.06 0.70 0.15 0.19
SAT2 0.18 0.22 0.21 0.15 0.16 0.20 −0.01 0.15 0.09 0.71 0.17 0.22
SAT3 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.16 0.24 0.01 0.12 0.08 0.75 0.14 0.23
SAT4 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.08 0.30 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.70 0.14 0.35
SAT5 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.17 0.08 0.31 −0.01 0.08 0.14 0.64 0.19 0.25
11. Intention to CO-CR1 0.07 0.20 −0.06 0.11 0.13 0.11 −0.02 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.81 0.21
Co-create CO-CR2 0.06 0.17 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.15 0.09 0.88 0.17
CO-CR3 0.00 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.89 0.14
CO-CR4 0.04 0.16 −0.04 0.06 0.07 0.12 −0.02 0.01 0.13 0.07 0.88 0.10
CO-CR5 −0.03 0.09 0.07 −0.01 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.14 0.10 0.20 0.83 0.02
12. Intention to Use Smart Service USE1 0.05 0.23 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.22 −0.03 0.06 0.11 0.33 0.21 0.72
USE2 0.13 0.20 0.17 −0.02 0.11 0.18 −0.02 −0.01 0.14 0.32 0.17 0.72
USE3 0.13 0.21 0.20 0.03 0.10 0.20 −0.05 0.03 0.13 0.27 0.19 0.73
USE4 0.13 0.24 0.04 0.17 0.09 0.15 −0.10 0.07 0.19 0.18 0.24 0.68
70 R. MOUSAVI ET AL.

Appendix E. Common method bias analysis

Construct Item Substantive Factor Loading (R1) R21 Method Factor Loading (R2) R22
Accessibility ACC1 0.903*** 0.815 −0.044 NS 0.002
ACC2 0.924*** 0.854 0.018 NS 0.000
ACC3 0.905*** 0.819 0.024 NS 0.001
Security SEC1 0.780*** 0.608 0.122 NS 0.015
SEC2 0.884*** 0.781 0.023 NS 0.001
SEC3 0.96*** 0.922 −0.055 NS 0.003
SEC4 0.676*** 0.457 0.068 NS 0.005
Responsiveness RES1 0.668*** 0.446 0.089 NS 0.008
RES2 0.961*** 0.924 −0.026 NS 0.001
RES3 0.876*** 0.767 −0.139 NS 0.019
Reliability REL1 0.897*** 0.805 −0.103 NS 0.011
REL2 0.755*** 0.570 −0.114 NS 0.013
REL3 0.765*** 0.585 0.066 NS 0.004
Assurance ASSU1 0.814*** 0.663 0.184 NS 0.034
ASSU2 0.852*** 0.726 0.071 NS 0.005
ASSU3 0.933*** 0.870 0.021 NS 0.000
Tangibles TAN1 0.966*** 0.933 −0.038 NS 0.001
TAN2 0.892*** 0.796 −0.054 NS 0.003
TAN3 0.924*** 0.854 0.012 NS 0.000
TAN4 0.895*** 0.801 0.036 NS 0.001
TAN5 0.959*** 0.920 −0.048 NS 0.002
Change in Behaviour/Belief /Attitude CHAN1 0.902*** 0.814 −0.002 NS 0.000
CHAN2 0.983*** 0.966 −0.04 NS 0.002
CHAN3 0.867** 0.752 0.045 NS 0.002
CHAN4 0.900*** 0.810 −0.018 NS 0.000
CHAN5 0.895** 0.801 0.025 NS 0.001
CHAN6 0.978*** 0.956 −0.073 NS 0.005
CHAN7 0.915*** 0.837 −0.011 NS 0.000
CHAN8 0.793*** 0.629 0.081 NS 0.007
Acquire New Information ACQ1 0.913*** 0.834 −0.04 NS 0.002
ACQ2 0.849*** 0.721 0.017 NS 0.000
ACQ3 0.887*** 0.787 −0.019 NS 0.000
ACQ4 0.710*** 0.504 0.05 NS 0.003
Reduce Cognitive Importance IMP1 0.762*** 0.581 0.108 NS 0.012
IMP2 0.939*** 0.882 −0.056 NS 0.003
IMP3 0.899*** 0.808 −0.004 NS 0.000
IMP4 0.947*** 0.897 −0.079 NS 0.006
IMP5 0.844*** 0.712 0.035 NS 0.001
Satisfaction SAT1 0.736*** 0.542 0.082 NS 0.007
SAT2 0.898*** 0.806 −0.041 NS 0.002
SAT3 0.940*** 0.884 −0.024 NS 0.001
SAT4 0.678*** 0.460 −0.114 NS 0.013
SAT5 0.829*** 0.687 −0.037 NS 0.001
Intention to Co-create CO-CR1 0.864*** 0.746 0.024 NS 0.001
CO-CR2 0.920*** 0.846 −0.044 NS 0.002
CO-CR3 0.891*** 0.794 0.006 NS 0.000
CO-CR4 0.781*** 0.610 −0.029 NS 0.001
CO-CR5 0.825*** 0.681 0.04 NS 0.002
Intention to Use Smart Service USE1 0.763*** 0.582 0.076 NS 0.006
USE2 0.855*** 0.731 −0.062 NS 0.004
USE3 0.709*** 0.503 0.11 NS 0.012
USE4 0.711*** 0.506 −0.117 NS 0.014
*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; NS p > 0.05 (two-tailed significance).
Appendix F: Results of the Gaussian Copula approach for endogeneity assessment

Endogeneity assessment when satisfaction is the dependent variable

Original Model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Endogenous Variable Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3 Variable 1, 2 Variable 1, 3 Variable 2, 3 Variable 1, 2, 3
Value p-Value Value p-Value Value p-Value Value p-Value Value p-Value Value p-Value Value p-Value Value p-Value
1. Intention to Co-create 0.161 <0.05 0.174 <0.05 0.176 <0.05 0.180 <0.05 0.151 <0.05 0.118 <0.05 0.108 <0.05 0.119 <0.05
2. Cognitive Dissonance 0.280 <0.001 0.257 <0.001 0.354 <0.001 0.261 <0.001 0.350 <0.01 0.255 <0.001 0.246 <0.001 0.302 <0.01
3. Service Quality 0.527 <0.001 0.541 <0.001 0.549 <0.001 0.654 <0.001 0.537 <0.001 0.739 <0.001 0.657 <0.001 0.732 <0.001
CIntention to Co-create 0.067 0.176 0.114 0.075 0.109 0.067 0.108 0.064
CCognitive Dissonance 0.094 0.437 0.106 0.135 0.015 0.921 0.048 0.751
CService Quality 0.084 0.081 0.097 0.058 0.096 0.126 0.106 0.129
Endogeneity assessment when intention to use smart service is the dependent variable
Endogenous Variable Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 1, 2
1. Satisfaction 0.559 <0.001 0.523 <0.001 0.584 <0.001 0.496 <0.001
2. Intention to Co-create 0.279 <0.001 0.293 <0.001 0.352 <0.001 0.401 <0.001
CSatisfaction 0.035 0.199 0.061 0.077
CIntention to Co-create 0.051 0.402 0.095 0.176
Endogeneity assessment when intention to co-create is the dependent variable
Endogenous Variable Variable 1
1. Cognitive Dissonance 0.504 <0.001 0.516 <0.001
CCognitive Dissonance 0.046 0.176

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

71