Understanding the differences of public and

private self-service technology

Joel E. Collier
Department of Marketing, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA
Daniel L. Sherrell and Emin Babakus
Department of Marketing & Supply Chain Management, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, and
Alisha Blakeney Horky
The Department of Marketing, Quantitative Analysis, and Business Law, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential differences between types of self-service technology. Specifically, the paper explores
how the dynamics of public and private self-service technology influence customers’ decision to use the technology.
Design/methodology/approach – Existing customers of private and public self-service technology were surveyed from the same industry. Using
structural equation modeling, the authors examine how relevant self-service constructs influence evaluations and attitudes of customers across both
settings.
Findings – The analysis reveals that customers’ control and convenience perceptions differ across public and private self-service technology.
Additionally, customers placed a heavier emphasis on the hedonic or utilitarian evaluation of a service experience based on the type of self-service
technology.
Practical implications – For managers of self-service applications, understanding the unique differences of public and private self-service technology
can aid in the implementation and adoption of the technology. By properly understanding the differences of the self-service types, managers can
provide a beneficial experience to the customer.
Originality/value – By identifying and describing two distinct categories of SSTs, this study allows managers and researchers to better understand
how and why individuals choose to utilize individual self-service technologies. Through understanding the unique dynamics of a public and a private SST
experience, retailers can determine the appropriate strategy for customer adoption based on the utilitarian or hedonic functions of the technology.

Keywords Control, Convenience, Hedonic, Self-service technology, Technical anxiety, Utilitarian

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
For the past decade, self-service technology (SST) has been
touted as a solution for addressing the dilemma of how to
increase the availability of a service while lowering costs.
Subsequently, many retailers were quick to adopt SSTs, but,
much to their disappointment, customers have still been
reluctant to adopt many self-service applications. There has
been a plethora of academic research trying to understand
what factors influence customers’ evaluation of an SST
(Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002; Meuter et al., 2005). From
this research, it has become clear that SSTs can have a
polarizing effect on customers, with some valuing the speed
and flexibility of the technology and others noting that SSTs
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
slow down the transaction process and create embarrassment
and anxiety (Dabholkar et al., 2003; Meuter et al., 2000).
One area that can aid in understanding the mixed reaction
of customers to SSTs is exploring the unique dynamics and
differences between SSTs. Previous research has shown that
consumers’ attitudes toward using self-service technology is
heavily dependent on the type of SST (Curran and Meuter,
2005). Similarly, research by Cunningham et al. (2009) notes
that consumers evaluate SSTs differently depending on the
amount of employee contact infused into the transaction.
Dimitriadis and Kyrezis (2011) also find that the type of
transaction greatly influences attitudes towards different
SSTs.
Previous research on SSTs has listed a diverse group of
constructs impacting customer attitudes (Curran et al., 2003;
Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002; Yen, 2005) leading to more
confusion than clarity on the subject. One of the primary
reasons for this confusion is that typically self-service
technology has been examined as an overarching concept
while failing to realize that all SSTs are not comparable.
Customers are not equally receptive to all types of self-service
technology and failing to understand the differences of SST

Journal of Services Marketing

28/1 (2014) 60– 70 Received 9 April 2012
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] Revised 12 September 2012
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-04-2012-0071] Accepted 24 October 2012

60
 Public and private self-service technology
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky
use can lead to faulty conclusions. Thus, we propose a
delineation of self-service technology into two categories:
public self-service technology and private self-service
technology. This categorization takes into account not only
the location of the technology but also the potential for social
interaction. Self-service technology that is located in high
traffic areas with numerous opportunities for directed or
impromptu interaction may be evaluated quite differently by
customers compared to SSTs that are located in a customer’s
home where interaction with others is not part of the
experience. By exploring the differences of public and private
self-service technologies, we answer previous calls to explore
how the unique and situational influences of SSTs influence
consumers self-service decisions (Wang et al., 2012).
In order to assess the impact of different SST types on
customer evaluations, a model of the important factors from
prior SST research was constructed. Using the theory of
planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) as a theoretical foundation,
we explore how relevant constructs such as perceived control,
convenience and technical anxiety influence customers’
utilitarian and hedonic value judgments across SSTs. The
purpose of our study is to explore these differences in
customer evaluations of SSTs in order to strengthen the
managerial understanding of customer adoption of SSTs. By
understanding the unique dynamics of a public and a private
SST experience, retailers can determine the appropriate
strategy for customer adoption based on the utilitarian or
hedonic functions of the technology.
Public vs private self-service technology
Self-service technology has been defined as any technological
interface that allows customers to produce a service
independent of direct service employee involvement (Meuter
et al. 2000). In categorizing types of SSTs, previous studies
have labeled SSTs as “onsite” and “offsite” (Dabholkar and
Bagozzi, 2002) or “internet” and “non-internet” (Forbes,
2008). We believe that the important differences in SSTs may
be attributed to more than just the location of the SST or its
online accessibility. The key to understanding why customers
respond differently to types of SSTs is the potential social
interaction during a transaction. The presence of other
customers during a self-service transaction has shown to have
adverse effects on customer performance (Dabholkar and
Bagozzi, 2002). Thus, we have conceptualized two types of
SSTs: public self-service technology and private self-service
technology.
A public self-service technology is an SST located where
social interaction can take place between the customer and
other patrons during the self-service experience. Examples of
public SSTs include kiosks, ATMs, and pay at the pump
terminals. Conversely, private self-service technologies are
located where a customer can interact with a self-service
technology without interaction with others. Examples of
private SSTs include the Internet, in-room hotel check-out,
and interactive phone systems.
One of the key differences between public and private self-
service technology is control. Private self-service technology
users have the option to stop the service experience in the
middle of a transaction and resume it at a later time. With this
type of SST, customers dictate the interactive engagement
level and pace of the transaction. Although public SSTs may
afford customers the ability to stop or control the pace of their
61
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70
interaction, the presence of other waiting patrons may limit
the use of such control. Subsequently, early research in self-
service shows that the degree of control a customer has in a
transaction influences the overall perceived value of the
experience (Lee and Allaway, 2002)
The concept of convenience, based on design and use of
SSTs, can also differ by SST type. Public SSTs are designed to
be used quickly because the customer is usually standing
during the transaction. Private SSTS are often used for much
longer transactions because customers can sit or lie down
during the transaction. Additionally, the speed of the
transaction with public SSTs requires that the technology be
simplistic and easy to use while private SSTs may have more
complexity, enabling the customer to freely browse the system
without pressure from the presence of other customers.
The hedonic and utilitarian value customers derive from
using an SST can also vary by SST type. Customers of private
SSTs may place more emphasis on the hedonic value of self-
service experience due to the ability to leisurely explore the
service at their discretion. Previous research notes that
customer comfort level can alter service evaluations (Lloyd
and Luk, 2011). Conversely, public SST users may emphasize
the utilitarian value of SSTs. For public SSTs, the utilitarian
value of task accomplishment may take on greater weight
where private SSTs can cater to customers’ intrinsic
motivation for exploration and trial without experiencing
negative consequences. Also, perceived time pressure in a
public service setting can have a greater influence on the
utilitarian than the hedonic value of an experience
(Strombeck and Wakefield, 2008).
Based on these reasons, failing to account for the
differences in types of SSTs could lead to conclusions that
ultimately mask the real reasons customers use self-service
technology. Customers of public and private SSTs differ in
their motivations and interactions with the technology.
Retailers failing to understand these differences may find
implementing an SST to be a challenging and frustrating
process.
Utilitarian and hedonic value judgments
Because public and private SSTs can differ based on the value
customers derive from the experience, it is worthwhile to
describe what value means from a hedonic and a utilitarian
standpoint. The hedonic value of a self-service experience is
the self-fulfilling benefit derived from the use of an SST, while
utilitarian value is the instrumental benefit the SST provides
to the user (Heijden, 2004). In a self-service technology
context, the research on utilitarian and hedonic motivations of
customers is sporadic and fragmented. Few studies have
simultaneously examined hedonic and utilitarian motivations
for SST use, although hedonic value has often been studied
(i.e. Bateson, 1985). For example, Dabholkar (1996) finds
that the construct of enjoyment has a positive relationship
with expected self-service quality.
In regards to utilitarian value, Curran and Meuter (2007)
find that customers’ overall attitude toward SSTs has a
positive relationship with utility considerations. Numerous
studies have examined technical aspects of service
experiences, but little attention has been paid to utilitarian
value judgments. Understanding the utility of a self-service
technology may provide a clearer picture of what customers
want in a self-service experience.
 Public and private self-service technology
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky
By exploring the utilitarian and hedonic impact of a self-
service experience, a retailer can effectively position a public
or private SST to meet the differing needs of customers. The
hedonic and utilitarian value of an experience is often based
on the affective and cognitive components of a customer’s
evaluation of the experience (Voss et al., 2003). Customers
pursue different types of SSTs for various reasons and
understanding the overall value judgments from these types of
SSTs can increase trial and adoption of this service.
Conceptual framework
To examine the differences of public and private SSTs, a
conceptual model that assesses the value customers place on
an SST transaction across different settings is developed.
Using the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991); we
explore how two constructs, perceived control and
convenience, can influence customers’ value judgments
depending on the type of SST used. Additionally, we
examine how perceived control and convenience influence
the technical anxiety customers feel for public and private
SSTs and how this anxiety influences evaluations of hedonic
and utilitarian value. Lastly, the impact of utilitarian and
hedonic value on customers’ overall attitude and intentions to
use SSTs is investigated. Figure 1 details our
conceptualization along with the hypothesized relationships
between the proposed constructs. Next, a brief discussion will
be provided on the importance of these proposed constructs
and why they were chosen for our study.
Perceived control
Perceived control in a self-service context is the belief in one’s
ability to command and exert power over the process and
outcome of a self-service encounter. Perceived control has
been used as a factor in profiling SST users (Howard and
Worboys, 2003; Walker et al., 2002), and as a predictive factor
for SST trust and exploration intentions (Collier and Sherrell,
2010). From a self-service perspective, the perceived control a
Figure 1 Conceptual framework for SST intentions model
62
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70
customer has in the experience can directly influence hedonic
or utilitarian value perceptions.
From a utilitarian standpoint, customers are directly
concerned with effectively completing an SST transaction to
accomplish their goal. The perceived control a customer feels
in a transaction directly relates to the customer’s ability to find
the appropriate information, dictate the transaction process,
and efficiently complete the transaction (Wolfinbarger and
Gilly, 2001). This control is paramount to the effective
completion of a self-service transaction and, ultimately, the
utilitarian benefits. Thus, perceived control will have a positive
influence on the utilitarian value of a self-service experience:
H1. A customer’s perceived control will have a positive
relationship to the utilitarian value of an SST
Perceived control can also influence customers’ hedonic value
derived from the service experience. Previous research notes
that perceived control is often an antecedent to a customer’s
emotional state and directly relates to the enjoyment derived
from an encounter (Hui and Bateson, 1991). Similarly, Ward
and Barnes (2001) find that customers’ control perceptions
are directly related to feelings of pleasure, arousal, and
involvement in a consumption setting. From a self-service
context, Collier and Sherrell (2010) note that customers’
feelings of control have a direct relationship on the hedonic
component of exploration during an SST experience. As
customers gain control over self-service transactions,
exploration should increase, creating a more enjoyable
experience by exposing all the benefits the technology has to
offer. Hence, customers’ perception of control will influence
the hedonic benefits of using the technology:
H2. A customer’s perceived control will have a positive
relationship to the hedonic value of an SST
Self-service convenience
Previous research on convenience has primarily focused on
the interaction of customers with employees (Berry et al.,
2002). Convenience in a self-service context has little to do
 Public and private self-service technology
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky
with employee interaction and is more concerned with the
interaction of customers and the technology and with the
environment that surrounds the technology. In a self-service
context, convenience is defined as the perceived time and
effort required in finding and facilitating the use of a self-
service technology (Collier and Sherrell, 2010). Self-service
convenience is composed of time accessibility and location
convenience. These elements not only address the perceive
time and effort of the transaction, but also account for the
components of finding and facilitating the transaction.
Previous research of online behavior shows that customers’
perceptions of convenience have a strong relationship with
enjoyment or hedonic evaluations (Childers et al., 2001).
Additionally, Collier and Sherrell (2010) find that SST users’
exploration intentions are influenced by convenience
perceptions. From a utilitarian standpoint, previous research
also shows how convenience influences the perceived
efficiency and effort to accomplish a task (Farquhar and
Rowley, 2009). With both private and public SSTs, the
convenience of the self-service transaction affects the
functional and enjoyment benefits derived from using the
technology to complete a service transaction. Hence, we
advance the following hypotheses:
H3. Self-service convenience will have a positive
relationship to a customer’s utilitarian value derived
from an SST
H4. Self-service convenience will have a positive
relationship to a customer’s hedonic value derived
from an SST
Technical anxiety
The technical anxiety customers feel while using an SST can
have detrimental effects on the evaluation of a service
experience. Technical anxiety is the fear people feel when
considering or using technology (Cambre and Cook, 1985).
Previous SST studies show that technical anxiety lowers trial
and usage intentions (Meuter et al., 2005; Meuter et al., 2003;
Oyedele and Simpson, 2007). Additionally, lack of control
can lead to increased stress and anxiety with SSTs (Lunardo
and Mbengue, 2009). Thus, the following hypothesis is
advanced:
H5. Perceived control will have a negative relationship to
customers’ technical anxiety
The convenience of an SST can also influence the anxiety
customers feel while using the technology. An inconvenient
location that requires the customer to account for more
environmental factors surrounding the technology can
increase the anxiety of a customer (Durkin, 2004). Previous
research shows that the perceived inconvenience of a
technology or servicescape can produce negative emotions
and avoidance behaviors (Bitner, 1992; Rosenbaum and
Massiah, 2011). Additionally, Parish et al. (2008) notes that
convenience perceptions lower stress in accomplishing a task.
The ability of the customer to choose when and where a
transaction will take place can create an environment than can
reduce the anxiety of using a technology to perform a service
task. Previous self-service research has noted that the
convenience of a self-service transaction allows the customer
to feel less pressure
H6. Self-service convenience will have a negative
relationship to customers’ technical anxiety
63
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70
The utilitarian and hedonic evaluation of an SST can also be
adversely effected by a customer’s technical anxiety. Previous
research notes that individuals possessing high levels of
anxiety with technology take longer to complete tasks and
thus have decreased performance (Fagan et al., 2003). For
customers who are very task oriented or who place emphasis
on the utilitarian value of the experience, technical anxiety
can impede their goal to complete a task efficiently.
Numerous studies in the IS field find that the stress and
anxiety an end-user feels using a technology will lead to lower
productivity of a task (Tarafdar et al., 2007; Tarafdar et al.,
2010). Similarly, when customers have a heightened degree of
anxiety using a technology apart from employee assistance,
the fun or enjoyment part of the service experience will be
lowered. Previous research shows that individuals possessing a
high level of computer anxiety are more likely to have
cognitive interference producing debilitating thoughts (Smith
and Caputi, 2001). Additionally, Doronina (1995) states that
customers with high technical anxiety look to reduce the
amount of time spent using computers. This is in direct
opposition to the idea of enjoying the use of a self-service
technology by exploring and browsing through the system.
Lastly, Venkatesh (2000) states that consumers divert
attention resources to off-task activities of anxiety reduction,
leading to a less pleasurable experience with a technology.
Thus, technical anxiety will have a negative influence on the
utilitarian and hedonic value with SST users:
H7. Technical anxiety will have a negative relationship to a
customer’s utilitarian value derived from an SST.
H8. Technical anxiety will have a negative relationship to a
customer’s hedonic value derived from an SST.
Intentions to use an SST
Both utilitarian and hedonic value can significantly influence a
customer’s attitude toward using an SST. Previous research
shows that these value judgments influence customers’
attitudes toward using a technology (Overby and Lee,
2006). One reason customers forego employee interaction in
favor of an SST is the perceived utility of the technology. As
customers see a clearly defined benefit from using an SST,
this should influence the attitudes toward the technology.
And. with many SSTs, the enjoyment of exploring the options
of a retailer can greatly influence the overall attitude about
using the technology.
In order to fully understand the impact on self-service
users, we extend the conceptual model to examine the
attitudes-intentions relationship. Substantial support in the
self-service literature justifies that customer’s attitude toward
an SST influences intentions to use the technology in the
future (Curran and Meuter, 2005; Curran et al., 2003;
Dabholkar, 1996; Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002). Therefore,
the following hypotheses are tested in this study:
H9. The utilitarian value derived from a self-service
experience will have a positive relationship to a
customer’s attitude toward using a self-service technology
H10. The hedonic value derived from a self-service experience
will have a positive relationship to a customer’s attitude
toward using a self-service technology
H11. A customer’s attitude toward using a self-service
technology will have a positive relationship with the
intentions of the customer to use the self-service
technology
 Public and private self-service technology
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky
Methodology
Study 1 – private self-service technology
To test our conceptual model and determine the differences of
public and private self-service technology, survey
methodology was used. By surveying both public and
private self-service users, the authors can adequately capture
the dynamics of each construct across contexts. For the
private SST, a survey consisting of 30 items was adapted from
existing research and slightly altered to apply to the specific
SST. The measures for control and convenience were adapted
from Dabholkar (1996), Yen and Gwinner (2003), Childers
et al. (2001), and Zhu (2002). The constructs of utilitarian
and hedonic value were adapted from Babin et al. (1994) and
Childers et al. (2001). The measures for technical anxiety,
attitude toward SSTs, and intentions were adapted from
Meuter et al. (2005), Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002), and
Oliver and Swan (1989).
A national company specializing in providing movies,
sports, and music entertainment to customers via a self-
service technology located in the home was selected for this
study. The survey was initially pretested on 500 randomly
selected patrons of the entertainment company with varying
levels of self-service usage. To encourage response, a credit to
the customer’s monthly bill was awarded to each respondent
who completed and returned the survey. At the conclusion of
the pretest, the coefficient alpha for each construct measure
was calculated and all measures exhibited an acceptable level
of reliability (a . ¼ 0.70, Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). An
exploratory factor analysis was also conducted where each
item loaded as expected on its respective construct.
After establishing the internal consistency and
unidimensionality of the scale items, an invitation for the
survey was mailed to 11,770 SST patrons of the
entertainment company. These patrons spanned three
southeastern states and included both rural and urban
customers. All patrons that returned a completed survey
were given a credit to their monthly bill. The invitation gave
customers the option to fill out the survey online or have a
hardcopy survey mailed to them along with a self-addressed
envelope. A total of 1,506 patrons responded to the invitation
and filled out an online survey. Requests for a hard copy
survey were received from 213 patrons though only 107 were
returned. Three weeks after the initial invitation, all patrons
who had not responded to survey were mailed a reminder. An
additional 593 patrons filled out an online survey and 27
hardcopy surveys were returned. A total of 2,235 patrons
responded to the survey producing a response rate of 19
percent. In order to account for nonresponse bias, we
followed Armstrong and Overton’s (1977) recommendation
by extrapolating across waves of respondents. We compared
the first wave and second wave of respondents on all
demographic and study variables in order to fully test if
nonresponse bias had occurred. The results of the analysis
found no significant difference between the groups.
A confirmatory factor analysis was then performed using
AMOS 17 to determine measurement model fit. The results
of the confirmatory factor analysis indicate that each item
loaded significantly on its respective underlying concept and
all loadings were significant. To view the complete list of items
and loadings see Table I. The fit indices also indicated that
the measurement model was a good fit to the data
( x2 ¼ 1782.80, df ¼ 343, NFI ¼ 0.97, IFI ¼ 0.97,
64
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70
CFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.04). The reliability of the scale
items were calculated again and all scales had an acceptable
level of reliability (a $ 0.70). To further establish the
convergent and discriminant validity of the measures, we
followed Fornell and Larker’s (1981) framework by
calculating the average variance extracted by each construct
compared to the shared variance between constructs. Each
construct had an average variance extracted over 0.50, and no
shared variance exceeded the average variance extracted per
construct, thus, supporting the convergent and discriminant
validity of the construct items.
Since the data were collected at a single point in time,
common method bias is a potential concern. To account for
this bias, we followed Malhotra et al.’s (2007)
recommendation by using the marker variable technique.
The marker variable used was price consciousness. We
performed an analysis of correlation between the marker
variable and all other constructs in the study. Taking the
second lowest correlation, an adjusted correlation was created
between the constructs in the model. Using the marker
variable correlation, we partialled out its effect from the
uncorrected correlations in the model. The adjusted
correlation matrix was then used as input in AMOS 17 to
test the structural relationships in the model. The results of
the structural analysis found that the model was an excellent
fit to the data (x2 ¼ 33.33, df ¼ 13, NFI ¼ 0.99, TLI ¼ 0.99,
CFI ¼ 0.99, RMSEA ¼ 0.02). After establishing model fit,
the hypothesized relationships were then analyzed. Table II
displays the scale means, standard deviations, and inter-
correlations between constructs. Table III shows the
standardized path estimates and t-values for each of the
hypothesized model relationships.
As shown in Table III, perceived control had a significant
relationship to both utilitarian and hedonic value. Based on
the standardized estimates, perceived control had a slightly
stronger relationship with utilitarian value (g11 ¼ 0.65,
t ¼ 26.53) than hedonic value evaluations (g21 ¼ 0.51,
t ¼ 19.65). Customers’ convenience perceptions also had a
significant relationship to both utilitarian and hedonic value
supporting H3 and H4. Of the two relationships, convenience
had a stronger relative influence on hedonic value
( g22 ¼ 0.19, t ¼ 6.84) supporting the importance of
convenience on the enjoyment derived from using a self-
service technology. Only convenience had a significant
relationship with technical anxiety. In a private SST setting,
perceived control had little influence on technical anxiety.
Technical anxiety had a significant influence on customers’
hedonic evaluations supporting H8 but had a nonsignificant
relationship with utilitarian value. Utilitarian and hedonic
evaluations had a significant relationship with customer
attitudes with utilitarian value (b41 ¼ 0.35, t ¼ 11.65) having
a stronger influence than hedonic value. Further supporting
the existing research on the theory of planned behavior, our
research did find a strong and significant relationship from
customer attitudes to intentions supporting H11.
From this analysis, it is clear that convenience and
perceived control have a heavy influence on the functional
aspects and enjoyment derived from using an SST. Based on
these results, we decided that the conceptual model did not
require any reformulation. To further explore the viability of
the model and to explore the potential differences of private
and public SSTs, a second study was undertaken.
 Public and private self-service technology Journal of Services Marketing
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70

Table I Confirmatory factor and reliability analysis study 1

Standardized factor
Self-service items loadings t-values
Ease of use (a 5 0.871)
(This SST) is easy to use 0.971 **
I find using (this SST) to be very user friendly 0.947 93.77
Using (this SST) is confusing 0.691 40.18
My interaction with (this SST) does not require a lot of effort 0.700 33.57
Speed of transaction (a 5 0.948)
I am able to complete a transaction with (this SST) without spending too much time 0.923 **
(This SST) saves me time 0.885 64.79
(This SST) lets me complete a transaction quickly 0.932 92.27
Time accessibility (a 5 0.925)
This SST) allows me to initiate a transaction whenever I choose 0.906 **
This SST) allows me to initiate a transaction at a convenient time to me 0.951 68.17
Perceived Control (a 5 0.901)
I feel in control using (this SST) 0.916 48.64
This SST) lets the customer be in charge 0.924 51.43
While using (this SST), I feel decisive 0.687 34.37
This SST) gives me more control over renting movies 0.874 **
Utilitarian value (a 5 0.882)
I accomplished just what I wanted to with (this SST) 0.875 **
I feel really smart about using (this SST) to accomplish my tasks 0.770 41.73
The use of (this SST) increases my productivity 0.714 33.25
The use of (this SST) enhances my effectiveness in purchasing entertainment products 0.814 38.55
Overall, I find (this SST) to be useful in purchasing entertainment products 0.913 46.98
Hedonic value (a 5 0.909)
Compared to the traditional process of purchasing entertainment products, the time spent 0.885 **
using (this SST) was enjoyable
While using (this SST), I found my experience enjoyable 0.883 56.59
It is fun to purchase entertainment products using (this SST) 0.820 47.43
Technical anxiety (a 5 0.872)
I hesitate to use (this SST) for fear of making a mistake I cannot correct 0.807 42.67
I feel insecure about my ability to use (this SST) 0.852 26.62
I have avoided SSTs because it can be somewhat intimidating 0.815 **
Attitude toward using SSTs (a 5 0.960)
semantic differential – Pleasant-unpleasant 0.916 73.99
semantic differential – Good-bad 0.947 **
semantic differential – Favorable-unfavorable 0.932 72.91
Intentions of use SSTs (a 5 0.942)
Semantic differential – Very likely-very unlikely 0.861 42.44
Semantic differential – Possible-impossible 0.887 **
Semantic differential – Very probable-not probable 0.883 52.43
2
Notes: x ¼ 1,782.80, df ¼ 343, IFI ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.97, NFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.04; * *denotes a constrained relationship to 1.00 in order for identification

Study 2 – public self-service technology
After establishing the conceptual model with a private self-
service technology, a public SST was then tested. The setting
for the second study was with a national movie theater chain
using a self-service technology called an Automated Box
Office (ABO). This SST allowed patrons to purchase tickets
for current and future shows via four self-service kiosks
located near the theater entrance. For study 2, the same items
were used in the survey instrument as Study 1 with a slight
change in wording to apply to the specific SST. Like Study 1,
customers were given an invitation to take the survey via the
internet or have a hardcopy mailed to them. These invitations
were handed to customers by movie theater employees. As
customers finished their self-service transaction through the
automated box office, movie theater employees handed
patrons an invitation to participate in an online survey
about their experience. Patrons who wanted to participate in
the survey, but did not have internet access, were asked to
write their name and address on the back of the invitation
card and a hardcopy survey with a self-addressed envelope
would be mailed to them. To encourage participation, survey
respondents were entered into a raffle to win gift cards from
the movie theater.
A total of 213 movie patrons responded to the self-service
survey with 59 percent of the sample being female. The
average age of respondent was 34. Due to the nature of the

65
 Public and private self-service technology Journal of Services Marketing
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70

Table II Means, standard deviations and correlations for private and public SST users
Private SST Public SST Intercorrelation of constructs
Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Perceived control 5.83 1.26 5.67 1.29 1 20.38 0.52 0.40 0.32 0.31 0.48 0.43
2. Technical anxiety 2.17 1.36 2.31 1.37 20.26 1 20.33 20.34 20.39 20.37 20.26 20.23
3. Utilitarian value 5.51 1.17 5.44 1.11 0.73 20.20 1 0.63 0.51 0.50 0.37 0.31
4. Hedonic value 5.73 1.21 5.25 1.22 0.68 20.26 0.80 1 0.46 0.45 0.22 0.20
5. Attitude 6.30 0.80 4.23 0.87a 0.39 20.19 0.51 0.48 1 0.70 0.21 0.19
6. Intentions to use SST 6.19 0.92 4.34 0.96a 0.31 20.15 0.40 0.38 0.69 1 0.20 0.18
7. Time convenience 6.13 1.35 6.19 1.08 0.63 20.27 0.50 0.51 0.28 0.21 1 0.61
8. Location convenience 6.42 1.21 6.19 1.03 0.65 20.28 0.51 0.52 0.29 0.72 0.22 1
Notes: Correlations above the diagonal are for Public SST. Correlations below the diagonal are for Private SST. aAttitudes and Intentions were on a five-point
scale for public SSTs and seven-point scale for Private SSTs

Table III Structural model test results for public and private SSTs
Private SST Public SST
Standardized weight t-value Standardized weight t-value
Convenience ! Time 0.83 41.45 0.83 7.76
a a
Convenience ! Location 0.86 0.73
Convenience ! Utilitarian Value 0.10 3.80 0.18 2.14
Convenience ! Hedonic Value 0.19 6.84 0.02 0.24
Control ! Utilitarian Value 0.65 26.53 0.36 4.65
Control ! Hedonic Value 0.51 19.65 0.30 3.68
Convenience ! Technical Anxiety 20.29 27.91 2 0.13 2 1.48
Control ! Technical Anxiety 20.03 21.03 2 0.29 2 3.58
Technical Anxiety ! Utilitarian Value 0.003 0.21 2 0.13 2 2.14
Technical Anxiety ! Hedonic Value 20.06 23.79 2 0.21 2 3.23
Utilitarian Value ! Attitude 0.35 11.65 0.36 4.90
Hedonic Value ! Attitude 0.20 6.65 0.23 3.09
Attitude ! Intentions 0.69 45.05 0.70 14.27
Model fit statistics
Chi-square 33.33 29.54
Df 13 13
NFI 0.99 0.95
CFI 0.99 0.97
TLI 0.99 0.94
RMSEA 0.02 0.07
Squared multiple correlations
Technical anxiety 0.10 0.16
Utilitarian value 0.53 0.31
Hedonic value 0.48 0.20
Attitude 0.27 0.29
Intent 0.47 0.49
Note: a ¼ No t-value- constrained for identification purposes

survey, ascertaining the nonrespondents for this study was not
possible. Management at the movie theater chain agreed to
make every effort to hand out an invitation to every patron
during the length of the study, but we are uncertain if all SST
patrons who entered the theater received an invitation. In
efforts to account for nonresponse bias, the first 25 percent of
the sample was compared to the last 25 percent on all
demographics and variables of the study. The results showed
there was no significant difference between the groups. This is
not a true test of nonresponse bias, but at least provides some
assurance that lagging respondents were the same as early
responders.
The measurement model for the survey was then analyzed
using AMOS 17. A confirmatory factor analysis was
performed and indicated that each item loaded significantly
on its underlying concept (t-values ranged from 7.08-26.15).
The reliability of each construct was calculated and all
measures had a coefficient alpha greater than 0.70. The fit
indices for the measurement model shows that the model has
an acceptable fit to the data (IFI ¼ 0.94, CFI ¼ 0.94,

66
 Public and private self-service technology
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky
RMSEA ¼ 0.06). Since the survey items were slightly
changed to apply to a public SST, we assessed the
measurement invariance across the two groups using the
procedure suggested by Hair et al. (2006). We constrained all
but one item for each construct (except for utilitarian value
which two equality constraints were removed) and compared
the two groups for metric invariance. The resulting x2-
difference statistic indicated that model fit did not
significantly deteriorate, supporting partial metric invariance
of the measures across the two studies (Hair et al., 2006).
Like study 1, the average variance extracted along with
shared variance between constructs was calculated to
determine the convergent and discriminant validity of the
measures. No shared variance between constructs exceeded
the average variance extracted per construct and all constructs
had an average variance extracted over 0.50. Consistent with
the first study, common method bias was assessed by using a
marker variable. The second lowest correlation of the marker
variable was used to create an adjusted correlation matrix in
which this marker variable correlation was partialled out of
the uncorrected correlation matrix. After adjusting the
correlations for each construct, the revised correlation
matrix was used as input to assess the structural
relationships of the public self-service setting.
Using AMOS 17, the structural analysis was then
performed and the model exhibited a good fit to the data
(x2 ¼ 29.54, df ¼ 13, NFI ¼ 0.95, TLI ¼ 0.94, CFI ¼ 0.97,
RMSEA ¼ 0.07). After assessing the model fit, the structural
relationships were then analyzed (see Table III). Unlike the
first study, the construct of convenience had a different
relationship with customers’ utilitarian and hedonic value
judgments. Convenience had a nonsignificant relationship to
hedonic value while a strong relationship to utilitarian value
judgments. Perceived control had a significant relationship to
both utilitarian and hedonic value with roughly an equivalent
influence on both constructs. Opposite of study 1, control had
a strong negative relationship with technical anxiety
( g31 ¼ 2 0.29, t ¼ 2 3.58) but convenience had little
influence on technical anxiety towards using an SST.
Also contrary to study 1, technical anxiety had a significant
influence on utilitarian value (b13 ¼ 2 0.13, t ¼ 2 2.14)
where little influence was found in the private SST setting.
Consistent with study 1, technical anxiety did have a negative
relationship with hedonic value supporting H8. Additionally,
both utilitarian and hedonic value had a positive relationship
to customer attitudes with utilitarian value having a stronger
relative influence (b41 ¼ 0.36, t ¼ 4.90). Lastly, customer
attitudes had a strong relationship with intentions supporting
H11.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to explore the potential differences
of public and private SSTs to understand how these varying
SST types can influence consumer attitudes. The results of
the analysis across contexts show differences in motivation
and usage regarding SSTs. The first area that differed across
SSTs was the convenience perceptions of consumers.
Previous qualitative SST research has lauded the
importance of convenience (Meuter et al., 2000), but our
study showed that the influence of convenience varies across
public and private SSTs. With public SSTs, convenience
plays an important role with the utilitarian values of the self-
67
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70
service experience. Conversely, with private SSTs,
convenience has a stronger influence to the hedonic benefit
of the experience.
As for perceptions of control, previous research has noted
that when customers are faced with too many options and
sense a lack of control they will psychologically “shut down”
(Wind and Rangaswamy, 2001). Our research found that the
impact of control depended on the type of SST. With public
SSTs, a lack of control did heighten anxiety and lead to
avoidance but with private SSTs a lack of control did not
reproduce the same effect. Private SST users were more
receptive to the technology in the face of less control
perceptions. The dynamics of other customers not present
during the transaction or the ability to enact the transaction at
their own pace may have contributed to these findings. We did
find that control perceptions are still important to the overall
utilitarian and hedonic benefit of the experience regardless of
SST type further emphasizing the role control plays in the
efficiency and enjoyment of an SST experience.
Consistent with previous research, we founnd that technical
anxiety can have a negative influence on the evaluation of an
SST (Meuter et al., 2003). Unlike other studies, we revealed
that technical anxiety has a stronger relative influence on the
perceived utilitarian value with public SSTs compared to
private SSTs. The location of the SST and the possibility for
social interaction with customers greatly influenced the
anxiety present while trying to accomplish a task.
Prior research on SSTs notes that one of the main criteria
for success is the emphasis of utilitarian aspects of the
technology (Durkin, 2004; Jones, 2002). This research shows
that customers’ attitudes toward SSTs are not solely based on
the utilitarian aspects of the technology. Both the utilitarian
and hedonic benefits of a self-service experience had a strong
influence on the attitude and intentions of using an SST. The
type of SST often dominated the importance of these
perceived benefits but highlight that customers evaluate the
quality of the technology by more than just its efficiency.
From a managerial perspective, this research offers several
insights on how to effectively implement an organization’s
self-service technology. A primary reason why self-service
technology is not being effectively adopted by many
customers may be the direct result of trying to force
functions or applications in a public SST that are better
suited for a private SST. With public SSTs, managers need to
focus on customer convenience as it directly relates to easily
completing a transaction. For instance, a service provider may
think offering a seat at a self-service application would
enhance the customer’s experience, whereas a public SST
customer may want a quick transaction and feels sitting would
only slow down the process. On the other hand, with a private
SST that has a greater opportunity for exploration, having a
seat could not only enhance the experience but create a
greater opportunity for cross selling. Managers of self-service
applications need to understand that convenience means very
different things across public and private SSTs. With public
SSTs, important convenience factors are those elements that
speed up the transaction, whereas with private SSTs,
improving convenience can help extend a service transaction.
There are numerous examples of customers’ rejecting SSTs
in public retail settings that try to get customers to browse
through the technology like a catalogue. The reason for this
failure is that exploration of products, offers, or incentives is
best served in a private SST not a public SST. With private
 Public and private self-service technology
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky
SSTs, customers do not have the perceived pressure from
other patrons to complete a transaction quickly and they can
start and stop a service experience with no ramification to
other customers. For example, one way that Redbox movie
SST enhanced their customer experience was allowing
customers to browse and reserve movie titles online thus
creating the experience at the Redbox location a utilitarian
function of simply picking up the movie. Customers’
frustration with standing at the SST browsing for a movie
has been removed to create a more enjoyable and directed
customer experience. Hence, the company is using its private
SST function to focus on the hedonic aspects of the
experience and the public SST to focus on the ultimate
utilitarian function of picking up and returning movies.
With both public and private self-service technology,
service providers need to focus on the utility of the
technology. From our research, it is clear that customers are
willing to take on a partial employee role only if they see a
directed benefit to them. Even in a private SST, customers
must still be able to efficiently complete a transaction at their
choosing. Private SSTs have a higher capacity for diverse
functions and options but some customers still want the
option for a quick transaction. The goal of an SST should be
to give customers the option to satisfy its hedonic wants while
at the same time offering a strong utilitarian benefit.
Limitations and future research
The insights generated by the present study must be
considered in the context of its limitations. First, we used
cross sectional rather than longitudinal data. Second, we
conducted both the private and public SST research in the
same industry. Expanding this research into other contexts
would add further validity to the differences found in these
studies. For future research, there are numerous topics in self-
service research that need to be explored. For example, future
research could explore if service recovery needs to take on a
different form and function with public and private SSTs.
There are also multiple other constructs that could be
included in our conceptual model. For example, speed of
transaction has been listed in numerous qualitative SST
studies as important but has delivered mixed results
empirically. This variation in importance could be examined
from a public and a private SST standpoint. Trust is another
construct that could differ across contexts with customers
potentially placing less trust in a public SST than a private
SST. Similar to trust, how does fairness influence customers
when they are being subtly pushed toward using a self-service
technology in the face of reduced employee interaction
option? In this situation, will customers react more negatively
to a public “push” toward a SST compare to a private SST?
Overall, it is our hope that this research spurs continued
interest in the field of self-service technology. By fully
understanding the unique differences between public and
private SSTs, service providers can target and implement the
appropriate functions and options to customers.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
68
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating
nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work
and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping
value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 644-656.
Bateson, J.E.G. (1985), “Self-service consumer: an exploratory
study”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 49-76.
Berry, L.L., Seiders, K. and Grewal, D. (2002),
“Understanding service convenience”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 1-17.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical
surroundings on customers and employees”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71.
Cambre, M.A. and Cook, D.L. (1985), “Computer anxiety:
definition, measurement, and correlates”, Journal of
Educational Computing Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 37-54.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001),
“Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail
shopping behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4,
pp. 511-535.
Collier, J.E. and Sherrell, D.L. (2010), “Examining the
influence of control and convenience in a self-service
setting”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38
No. 4, pp. 490-509.
Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E. and Gerlach, J. (2009), “A
comparison of consumer views of traditional services and
self-service technologies”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 11-23.
Curran, J.M. and Meuter, M.L. (2005), “Self-service
technology adoption: comparing three technologies”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 103-113.
Curran, J.M. and Meuter, M.L. (2007), “Encouraging
existing customers to switch to self-service technologies:
put a little fun in their lives”, Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 283-298.
Curran, J.M., Meuter, M.L. and Surprenant, C.F. (2003),
“Intentions to use self-service technologies: a confluence of
multiple attitudes”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 209-224.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1996), “Consumer evaluations of new
technology-based self-service options: an investigation of
alternative models of service quality”, International Journal
of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-51.
Dabholkar, P.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2002), “An attitudinal
model of technology-based self service: moderating effects
of consumer traits and situational factors”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 184-201.
Dabholkar, P.A., Bobbitt, L.M. and Lee, E.-J. (2003),
“Understanding consumer motivation and behavior related
to self-scanning in retailing”, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-95.
Dimitriadis, S. and Kyrezis, N. (2011), “The effect of trust,
channel technology, and transaction type on the adoption of
self-service bank channels”, Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 1293-1310.
Doronina, O.V. (1995), “Fear of computers: its nature,
prevention, and cure”, Russian Social Science Review, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 79-90.
Durkin, M. (2004), “In search of the internet banking
customer”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 484-503.
 Public and private self-service technology
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky
Fagan, M.H., Neill, S. and Wooldridge, B.R. (2003), “An
empirical investigation into the relationship between
computer self-efficacy, anxiety, experience, support, and
usage”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 95-104.
Farquhar, J.D. and Rowley, J. (2009), “Convenience: a services
perspective”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 425-438.
Forbes, L.P. (2008), “When something goes wrong and no
one is around: non-internet self-service technology failure
and recovery”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 316-327.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models and unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and
Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysi, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Heijden, H.V.D. (2004), “User acceptance of hedonic
information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 695-704.
Howard, M. and Worboys, C. (2003), “Self-service – a
contradiction in terms or customer-led choice?”, Journal of
Consumer Behavior, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 382-392.
Hui, M.K. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1991), “Perceived control
and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the
service experience”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 174-184.
Jones, S. (2002), “Everything I needed to know about web
self-service i learned from my ATM”, Customer Interface,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 28-30.
Lee, J. and Allaway, A. (2002), “Effects of personal control on
adoption of self-service technology innovations”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 553-572.
Lloyd, A.E. and Luk, S.T.K. (2011), “Interaction behaviors
leading to comfort in the service encounter”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 176-189.
Lunardo, R. and Mbengue, A. (2009), “Perceived control and
shopping behavior: the moderating role of the level of
utilitarian motivational orientation”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 434-441.
Malhotra, N.K., Patil, A. and Kim, S.S. (2007), “Bias
breakdown”, Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-29.
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown, S.W.
(2005), “Choosing among alternative service delivery
modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service
technologies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, pp. 61-83.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J. and Roundtree, R.
(2003), “The influence of technology anxiety on consumer
use and experiences with self-service technologies”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 899-906.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I. and Bitner,
M.J. (2000), “Self-service technologies: understanding
customer satisfaction with technology-based service
encounters”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 50-64.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric
Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989), “Consumer perceptions
of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: a
field survey approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 21-35.
Overby, J.W. and Lee, E.-J. (2006), “The effects of utilitarian
and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference
69
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70
and intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
Nos 10-11, pp. 1160-1166.
Oyedele, A. and Simpson, P.M. (2007), “An empirical
investigation of consumer control factors on intention to
use selected self-service technologies”, International Journal
in Service Industry Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 287-306.
Parish, J.T., Berry, L.L. and Lam, S.Y. (2008), “The effect of
the servicescape on service workers”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 220-238.
Rosenbaum, M.S. and Massiah, C. (2011), “An expanded
servicescape perspective”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 471-490.
Smith, B. and Caputi, P. (2001), “Cognitive interference in
computer anxiety”, Behavior and Information Technology,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 265-273.
Strombeck, S.D. and Wakefield, K.L. (2008), “Situational
influences on service quality evaluations”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 22 Nos 4/5, pp. 409-419.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q. and Ragu-nathan, T.S. (2010), “Impact
of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 303-334.
Tarafdar, M., Qiang, T., Ragu-nathan, B. and Ragu-nathan,
T.S. (2007), “The impact of technostress on role stress and
productivity”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 2007 No. 24, p. 1.
Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Determinants of perceived ease of use:
integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into
the technology acceptance model”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 342-365.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Grohmann, B. (2003),
“Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of
consumer attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40,
pp. 310-320.
Walker, R.H., Craig-Lees, M., Hecker, R. and Francis, H.
(2002), “Technology-enabled service delivery”, International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 91-106.
Wang, C., Harris, J. and Patterson, P.G. (2012), “Customer
choice of self-service technology: the roles of situational
influences and past experience”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 54-78.
Ward, J.C. and Barnes, J.W. (2001), “Control and affect: the
influence of feeling in control of the retail environment on
affect, involvement, attitude, and behavior”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 139-144.
Wind, J. and Rangaswamy, A. (2001), “Customerization: the
next revolution in mass customerization”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 13-32.
Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M.C. (2001), “Shopping online
for freedom, control, and fun”, California Management
Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 34-55.
Yen, H.R. (2005), “An attribute-based model of quality
satisfaction for internet self-service technology”, The
Services Industry Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 641-659.
Yen, H.J.R. and Gwinner, K.P. (2003), “Internet retail
customer loyalty: the mediating role of relational benefits”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 483-500.
Zhu, Z. (2002), “Fix it or leave it: antecedents and
consequences of perceived control in technology-based
self-service failure encounters”, University of Illinois at
Chicago, Chicago, IL, doctoral dissertation.
 Public and private self-service technology
J.E. Collier, D.L. Sherrell, E. Babakus and A. Blakeney Horky
Corresponding author
Dr Joel E. Collier can be contacted at: jcollier@cobilan.
msstate.edu
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
You either like it or you hate it – that just about sums up
customers’ attitudes towards self-service technology. If you
are in a hurry and have just a few items to buy at the
supermarket, you might love the convenience and speed of the
self-service tills. On the other hand you might despair at the
“glitches” that frequently occur when you then have to
summon a store employee, or be embarrassed if you are
holding up a queue because you cannot operate the
technology as efficiently as you – or those behind you –
think you should.
The same can be said of bank ATMs or gas station pay-at-
the-pump facilities – all examples of the self-service
customers carry out “in public.” Then there are the self-
service tasks which customers carry out in a more private
arena – possibly in the comfort of their own home where
there aren’t any other customers looking on or glancing at
their watches, but equally there aren’t any store employees on
hand to help out. Examples of “private” self-service include
using the internet, in-room hotel check-outs and interactive
telephone systems. One of the key differences is control.
Private SST users have the option to stop the service
experience in the middle of a transaction and resume it later.
With this type of SST customers dictate the interactive
engagement level and pace of the transaction. Although
public SSTs may afford customers the ability to stop or
control the pace of their interaction, the presence of other
waiting patrons may limit the use of such control.
Public SSTs are designed to be used quickly because the
customer is usually standing during the transaction. Private
SSTs are often used for much longer transactions because
customers can sit down during the transaction. Additionally,
the speed of the transaction with public SSTs requires that
the technology be simplistic and easy to use while private
SSTs may be more complex, enabling the customer to freely
browse the system without pressure from the presence of
other customers.
The hedonic and utilitarian value customers derive from
using an SST can also vary by SST type. Customers of private
SSTs may place more emphasis on the hedonic value of a self-
service experience due to the ability to leisurely explore the
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
70
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 1 · 2014 · 60 –70
service. Conversely, public SST users may emphasize the
utilitarian value. For public SSTs, the utilitarian value of task
accomplishment may take on greater weight where private
SSTs can cater to customers’ intrinsic motivation for
exploration and trial without experiencing negative
consequences. Also, perceived time pressure in a public
service setting can have a greater influence on the utilitarian
than the hedonic value of an experience.
Many retailers who were quick to adopt SSTs as a way of
increasing the availability of service while lowering costs have
been disappointed at customers’ reluctance to adopt many of
their applications. When trying to discover why this is, it must
be appreciated that customers are not equally receptive to all
types of SST and failing to understand the differences of use
can lead to faulty conclusions..A primary reason why self-
service technology is not being effectively adopted by many
customers may be the direct result of trying to force functions
or applications in a public SST that are better suited for a
private SST. There are numerous examples of customers’
rejecting SSTs in public retail settings that try to get
customers to browse through the technology like a catalogue.
The reason for this failure is that exploration of products,
offers, or incentives is best served in a private SST not a
public SST.
In “Understanding the differences of public and private
self-service technology” Dr Joel E. Collier et al. explore how
relevant constructs such as perceived control, convenience
and technical anxiety influence customers’ utilitarian and
hedonic value judgments across SSTs. By understanding the
unique dynamics of a public and a private SST experience,
retailers can determine the appropriate strategy for customer
adoption based on the utilitarian or hedonic functions of the
technology.
With public SSTs, managers need to focus on customer
convenience as it directly relates to easily completing a
transaction. For instance, a service provider may think
offering a seat at a self-service application would enhance the
customer’s experience, whereas a public SST customer may
want a quick transaction and feels sitting would only slow
down the process. On the other hand, with a private SST that
has a greater opportunity for exploration, having a seat could
not only enhance the experience but create a greater
opportunity for cross-selling. Managers of self-service
applications need to understand that convenience means
very different things across public and private SSTs. With
public SSTs, important convenience factors are those
elements that speed up the transaction, whereas with private
SSTs, improving convenience can help extend a service
transaction.
(A précis of the article “Understanding the differences of public and
private self-service technology”. Supplied by Marketing
Consultants for Emerald.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.