Journal of Services Marketing

Giving back the “self” in self service: customer preferences in self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale, Allyn White,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale, Allyn White, (2017) "Giving back the “self” in self service: customer preferences in self-
service failure recovery", Journal of Services Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-07-2016-0259
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-07-2016-0259
Downloaded on: 17 October 2017, At: 03:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:232872 []
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Giving back the “self” in self service: customer
preferences in self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier
Department of Marketing, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA
Michael Breazeale
Department of Marketing, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, USA, and
Allyn White
Department of Marketing, University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi, USA

Abstract
Purpose – When a failure occurs with a self-service technology (SST), do customers want to give back the “self” in self-service? The authors explore
employee’s role in a self-service failure and how the presence of other customers can change that role. Specifically, they examine how the self-
monitoring of customers behavior during a failure can change recovery preferences.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from customers of a movie self-service ticket kiosk and a grocery self-checkout. Three
experiments were conducted.
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)

Findings – Results from these studies find that customers want employees to fully take over a transaction after a failure if it takes place in isolation.
If other patrons are present or waiting in line, then customers prefer the employee to simply correct the problem and let them complete the
transaction. Finally, the servicescape along with the presence of other customers in a self-service area can induce self-monitoring behaviors and
alter optimal recovery strategies.
Research limitations/implications – These findings have implications on the appropriate amount of recovery assistance customers need in a self-
service experience.
Practical implications – This research reveals the social and functional complexities associated with executing a satisfactory SST failure recovery,
particularly with respect to determining the extent to which the employee or customer should control the attempt.
Originality/value – This is the first study to examine the employee’s role in a self-service failure. While other studies have examined customers’
intentions in a self-service failure, authors examine how a service provider can assist in the recovery of a self-service failure.
Keywords Service recovery, Self-service technology, Customer waiting, Self-monitoring
Paper type Research Paper

A Washington D.C. man was arrested at Louis Armstrong International
Airport after he allegedly punched a Continental Airlines check-in kiosk out
of frustration Sunday morning. The blow was enough to shatter the screen
and put the computer terminal out of commission, according to a Jefferson
Parish Sheriff’s Office arrest report. (Economist.com, 2011)
Experts generally contend that self-service technology (SST)
represents an important element in today’s retail environment,
offering convenience for many customers, along with long-term
cost savings sought by providers (Oh et al., 2013; Collier and
Barnes, 2015). These benefits are largely attributable to the
reduced need for employee assistance in carrying out the
customer’s transaction (Zhou et al., 2013). While some SSTs
still include a degree of employee participation or supervision
(e.g., airport kiosks, grocery checkout and theater ticketing
kiosks), others are completely unattended by employees (e.g.
movie rental kiosks and after-hours automated bank tellers).
The heightened customer responsibility inherent in successful
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
SST implementation, however, broadens the scope for
potential failures, a situation that can negatively influence
customer evaluations of the service provider. Self-service failure
presents a unique retailer dilemma, as customers have assumed
a partial employee role to complete a service transaction
(Meuter et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2007; Ding et al., 2011).
Consequently, the risk associated with SST use may be
amplified because of reduced employee support in the event a
problem occurs. Not surprisingly, prior research suggests that
technical- and process-oriented failures are the primary
determinants of customer SST abandonment (Forbes, 2008).
Though SSTs are becoming ubiquitous in retail environments,
numerous examples detail how customers’ frustrations because
of self-service failures have pushed them to full-service channels
(Forbes, 2008; Zhu et al., 2007, 2013) and even to illegal
remedies as in the case referenced above (Economist.com,
2011). Another common reaction to SST failures is
embarrassment, as described to Forbes (2008, p. 320):
I was trying to get money out of a machine in Chicago, late at night. There
were many people waiting in line for me. The machine gave me an incorrect
amount of money and then ate my card! I kept trying to fix the problem and

Journal of Services Marketing Received 6 July 2016

© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] Revised 1 February 2017
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-07-2016-0259] Accepted 12 April 2017
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
everyone in line was yelling at me to hurry up. I was so angry and was very
embarrassed.
To compound the problem for retailers, previous research
indicates customers are less likely to notify a company when an
SST failure occurs, leaving the retailer unable to rectify the
problem (Robertson and Shaw, 2005).
While existing services literature is replete with studies on
customers’ overall attitude toward SST, current research lacks
a comprehensive understanding of customer expectations for
successful self-service recovery and the extent to which a
provider’s recovery protocol impacts future behavioral
intentions. Previous research reports that infusing an employee
into the recovery process can be frustrating for customers
originally seeking to avoid human interaction by choosing this
channel alternative (Mattila et al., 2011), while other research
suggests some customers prefer to have an employee nearby in
the event of a failure (Dixon et al., 2001; Zhou et al., 2013).
Moreover, customers have noted benefits in participating in the
recovery when an SST failure occurs (Dong et al., 2008). Thus,
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
retailers must understand that optimal SST implementation
requires an effective failure–recovery strategy. But what is the
desired role of an employee during a self-service recovery?
When a failure occurs, do customers want to give back the
“self” in the self-service process and let the employee take over?
In other words, to what extent are customers content to take on
the extra effort to perform the service recovery themselves, and
what are the critical determinants to failure resolution?
The current research addresses these questions by exploring
the optimal strategy for employee intervention during a self-
service failure. Does the customer prefer to hand off to an
employee in the event of a self-service failure, and if so, under
what circumstances? The theoretical lens guiding this research
is self-monitoring theory (Snyder, 1974), which explains the
extent to which individuals attempt to manage public
perceptions of their actions. Using self-monitoring as a
foundation for our studies, we explore whether the receptivity
to recovery options is influenced by the presence of others and
the impression management that takes place in the recovery
process. Specifically, we explore how customers’ self-
monitoring behaviors influence self-service recovery
preferences. With a series of experiments, we first explore the
extent to which customers want employees to complete a
transaction after a self-service failure or to simply address the
initial problem and let the customer complete the transaction.
The second research objective relates to how the presence of
other customers waiting in line impacts a customer’s evaluation
of the provider’s recovery approach. With waiting customers
present during a failure, do the self-monitoring actions of the
customer influence how much aid a customer wants from an
employee? In Study 1, we examine how different recovery
strategies influence evaluations of satisfaction, intentions to
switch to a full-service option, and other constructs such as
embarrassment when a technical failure occurs. In Study 2, we
build on the findings of the Study 1 to explore how recovery
strategy preferences might change if the customer is the reason
the failure occurred in an SST transaction. Finally, in Study 3,
we explore how the environment in a self-service area might
increase self-monitoring behaviors and, subsequently, the
desired role of employees during a recovery. In particular, we
examine how the servicescape layout of a self-service area can
Journal of Services Marketing
encourage self-monitoring, especially when waiting customers
are funneled into one area, leading to greater visibility of a self-
service failure and subsequent recovery.
From a managerial perspective, this research provides
guidelines for executing SST failure recovery strategy that align
with customer expectations regarding the employee’s role in a
variety of recovery contexts. Implications from the current
findings are insightful for the increasing number of retailers
embracing omni-channel strategies that focus on maximizing
customer relationship management at every provider
touchpoint in a cohesive manner (Friedenberg, 2014). Failures
are inevitable in services, but the way management approaches
failure resolution can determine the difference between a
successful SST implementation and customers’ ultimate
SST—or provider—abandonment. By understanding the
unique dynamics of self-service failures, management can
establish recovery strategies that prevent customer defection in
the event a problem arises. Hence, failure to provide an
appropriate self-service recovery can result in customer
embarrassment, negative word of mouth (NWOM) and
defection which ultimately could result in a self-service option
that customers ignore while increasing the costs of full service
options.
Theoretical development
Self-service recovery literature
Service recovery in general is a topic that has received a great
deal of attention from academics as well as practitioners.
Researchers have explored customers’ preferred timing of
recovery and compensation (Kim and Ulgado, 2012),
customers’ attitudes toward excessive recovery efforts (Noone,
2012), the impact of various demographic characteristics on
recovery preferences (Chung-Herrera et al., 2010; Mattila,
2010) and even the differences between customer involvement
in preferences for service recovery (Bambauer-Sachse and
Rabeson, 2015). Recovery with a self-service application,
however, poses a unique challenge to providers seeking to
balance customers’ desire for independence with providing the
right amount of assistance. Recovery in a self-service context
has been previously defined as “an immediate problem
resolution” (Dabholkar and Spaid, 2012, p. 1416) or, in
essence, the ability to simply resolve a failure to complete a
transaction. Early qualitative research in self-service recovery
noted that in 47 per cent of failures, the provider made no
recovery attempt, and in 17 per cent of instances, the provider
actually compounded the negative effects of the failure in the
recovery process (Forbes, 2008). Of particular interest in the
findings from the Forbes study, many perceived instances of
failure with an SST were a direct result of unprompted or
unsolicited actions of an employee. Holloway and Beatty
(2003) report similar findings with a majority of SST recovery
attempts still resulting in dissatisfaction.
These early studies catalyzed recent research on the role of
employees in the SST recovery process. The results of these
studies put forth equivocal insights regarding customers’
desired level of employee assistance during a self-service failure
recovery. For example, Mattila et al. (2011) found that
customers originally motivated to use SST to avoid human
interaction exhibited heightened frustration with employee
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
intervention during recovery attempts. Conversely, Dabholkar
and Spaid (2012) note that customers perceive higher levels of
control if employees aid in the SST recovery than if assistance
were not provided. Most recently, Zhu et al. (2013) argue that
customers’ level of recovery expectancy, defined as anticipated
successful resolution of the problem, is driven by the
interactivity and perceived control over the technology. These
expectations in turn largely influence customer responses to the
failure, such that lower levels of expectancy lead to heightened
intentions to seek employee assistance.
While many of these studies examine the effectiveness of SST
failure recovery, they largely assume employee assistance is not
available and/or desirable. However, anecdotal evidence from
practice paints a more complex picture of SST failure
experiences, in which employee participation is often necessary in
some form (Galer, 2014; Sharp, 2014). Consequently, research
on SST failure recovery must broaden in scope to account for the
still relevant customer-employee interaction in service provision.
Are there situations where the customer would rather relinquish
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
the transaction back to an employee to finish when a failure
occurs? Additionally, how does the presence of other customers
during a self-service failure influence customers’ intentions to
self-recover from a failure? In considering these issues, self-
monitoring theory provides a foundation for explaining
customers’ self-service recovery preferences. Self-monitoring
theory provides insights into how customers’ behaviors and
evaluations of an experience can change depending on the
situation and the environment in which a situation occurs.
Self-monitoring theory
Self-monitoring is defined as the extent to which people “can
and do exercise control over their verbal and nonverbal self-
presentation” (Snyder, 1979, p. 88). This construct describes
the extent to which consumers are concerned with impression
management along with the necessary actions needed to be
portrayed in a positive manner (Hu and Parsa, 2011). For
example, high self-monitors demonstrate a greater willingness
than low self-monitors to expend effort to ensure that they
maintain a positive image in front of others. However, existing
literature in consumer neuroscience and cognitive development
suggests that self-monitoring, like other self-regulatory
variables, may be situationally influenced or primed by
environmental cues (Bengtsson et al., 2011; Schunk and
Zimmerman, 1998). From this perspective, customers may
exhibit a tendency to regulate their behavior in response to
situational context cues to present themselves in a favorable
light to others (Snyder, 1974). Essentially, customers will
change their behavior in the presence of employees or other
customers to present a socially desirable image. In a self-service
context, self-monitoring presents a unique situation. For
example, the choice of self-service may allow high self-monitors
to focus on the performance of the task without having to worry
about the scrutiny of others. Because there is no employee
involved in the immediate transaction and no other customers
are party to a smooth self-service transaction, there is no one to
impress. When a self-service failure occurs, this potentially
isolated transaction has now become a public recovery, with an
employee coming to assist and the possibility of other
customers that were waiting to use the technology now paying
attention to the unfolding process. In this situation, the
Journal of Services Marketing
presence of others can change the outlook and actions of the
customer hoping to avoid any negative social judgments from
customers waiting to use the technology.
Previous research has noted that self-monitoring individuals
will change their behaviors in a retail environment to account
for the social influence and evaluation of others. In these
contexts, concerns regarding the perceptions of other
customers have been found to change spending behaviors
(Kurt et al., 2011), to modify mood state (Puccinelli et al.,
2007) and to alter complaint intentions (Bodey and Grace,
2006). Indeed, Ariely and Levav (2000) note that consumer
decision-making is systematically different in a group context
compared to private consumption because of the impression
management concerns of the customer. In a self-service
context, Forbes’s (2008) qualitative study found that in an SST
failure the social judgment of other customers not only causes
embarrassment but stimulates changes in customer behavior.
With a self-service transaction, failures encourage not only
employees but also other customers to focus on the actions of
the customer completing the transaction. Does an audience of
waiting customers in a self-service failure alter how much
“help” is desired to rectify the problem while managing the
impression given off to other customers? In most instances,
customers feel they have the requisite skills to complete a
transaction without employee intervention. When a failure
occurs, which can draw the attention of others waiting to use
technology, do customers want to prove their self-service
efficacy or do they simply want to hand the transaction off to an
employee? Studies 1 and 2, discussed next, consider the
influence of self-monitoring tendencies on outcomes of varied
employee-customer participation in SST recovery situations.
Study 3 then supplements these findings by considering the
extent to which self-monitoring may be influenced by social
influences and servicescape design.
Study 1: employee’s role during an SST failure
In Study 1, our goal was to understand if customers want to give
back the “self” in self-service when a failure occurs. To date, we
have very little insight on customers’ preferences for employee
intervention in a transaction that was initially intended to be
completed solely by the customer. Additionally, SSTs are often
located in public places (or checkout areas) where there are
numerous impromptu interactions. Does the presence of other
customers during an SST failure influence recovery preferences?
Hence, does fear of embarrassment, and ultimately the impression
given off to other waiting customers, impact how much employee
interaction is desired when an SST failure occurs?
To study the impact of SST failures relevant to managerial
strategy, the authors examine five specific outcomes that are
often the constructs of interest in SST failure studies –
satisfaction with the SST transaction, intention to switch from
the self-service option to a full-service option on the next visit
(relevant to practitioners as this move would necessitate
reallocation of retailer resources), propensity to spread
NWOM, susceptibility to embarrassment in the event of a
failure, and felt time pressure to complete a transaction. These
outcomes represent both an attitudinal and a behavioral
component shown to result from an SST failure (White et al.,
2012; Zhu et al., 2013).
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
Satisfaction represents a customer’s overall assessment of the
total purchase and consumption experience, both actual and
anticipated (Johnson et al., 1995). The measure of satisfaction
used in this study is directed specifically toward the SST
transaction experience itself. Linked with satisfaction,
intentions to stay with the provider but switch service delivery
methods should indicate a lesser level of dissatisfaction with the
provider while still representing a degree of dissatisfaction with
the transaction in question. Finally, NWOM, defined as the
interpersonal communication concerning an organization and/
or its products or services that denigrates the object of the
communication (Richins, 1983; Schoefer and Diamantopoulos,
2008), is examined. Existing research often cites NWOM as a
behavioral response to dissatisfactory service or service recovery
attempts (Blodgett et al., 1993; Ward and Ostrom, 2006). In
this study, propensity to spread NWOM is included to further
indicate the degree of dissatisfaction with the service provider.
We have additionally included perceived time pressure and
embarrassment as constructs of interest because these feelings
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
should be relevant dimensions of the customer’s perceptions of the
overall situation. Perceived time pressure reflects the sense of
urgency that a customer feels as the amount of time required to
complete a task approaches or exceeds the amount of time allocated
to that task (Strombeck and Wakefield, 2008). Time pressure has
been determined to be a situational component of customer
attitudes toward SST experiences (Collier et al., 2015).
Embarrassment in this context relates to a socially occurring
phenomenon driven by an individual’s concern for others’ opinions
(Miller, 1996). A customer potentially feels embarrassment when
perceiving that a waiting customer judges his inability to complete
an SST transaction unaided. Thus, embarrassment represents a
relevant outcome in an SST failure context (Forbes, 2008).
Hypotheses
When a failure occurs in private, isolated from other customers,
the customer should evaluate the effort required to fix the
problem as a cost. With most self-service transactions, the
efficiency of the transaction is a determining factor for choosing
this channel option (Meuter et al., 2005). When a failure
occurs, this added cost of time and effort to rectify the problem
will change the expectations of recovery. Previous research has
noted that customers often want a recovery that will
compensate for the cost of a failure (Smith et al., 1999). When
an employee comes over and not only fixes the problem but
takes over the transaction to completion, the additional cost to
the consumer has now been removed. From a self-monitoring
perspective, in a private setting, impression management is not
a substantial concern. The employee is present to simply aid in
the recovery and is ultimately there to increase the satisfaction
of the customer in the recovery process. The employee’s job is
to recover from the perceived “loss/cost” with the self-service
failure and to compensate for this inconvenience. Hence,
customers will be more than willing to let employees take on
this added cost to complete the transaction after the initial
failure has been resolved. With no other customers present
during the failure or recovery, having an employee not only
recover from the failure but complete the transaction for the
customer should increase satisfaction from the experience and
prevent negative future intentions such as switching to a full-
service option or NWOM. Additionally, letting the employee
Journal of Services Marketing
complete the transaction after the failure will not only decrease
perceived time pressure to complete the transaction but also
lower the chances of embarrassment compared to when the
failure was simply fixed but the customer had to complete the
transaction again without employee involvement. With little
perceived social threats in a private setting, customers will
prefer a recovery option that provides more benefits to them in
the service process. Therefore:
H1. Customers experiencing an SST failure in isolation will
be (a) more satisfied with the transaction, (b) less likely
to switch to the full-service option on their next visit to
the retailer, (c) less likely to spread NWOM about the
retailer, (d) less impacted by perceived time pressure,
and (e) less embarrassed when an employee takes over
and completes the transaction than when the employee
merely fixes the problem and allows the customer to
complete the transaction.
In a social setting, previous research has found that consumers
will choose the alternatives that supply or may be expected to
supply the most social approval, or conversely, those that
promise the least disapproval (McDonell et al., 2006).
Additionally, Latane (1981) argues that consumers’ behaviors
will change based on the real, implied, or imagined presence or
actions of others in a social setting. Hence, the presence of other
customers waiting to utilize the SST should impact customer
evaluations of recovery attempts. Previous research on service
recovery has found that group settings can significantly impact
different recovery strategies (Zhou et al., 2013). When other
customers are waiting in line, potentially disapproving of being
forced to wait even longer, the affected customer will have a
heightened level of self-monitoring to save face in front of other
customers. When a customer chooses a self-service option,
there is an expectation that the customer can complete the
transaction apart from employee involvement. When a failure
occurs, with other patrons waiting to use the SST, recovery
takes on an added emphasis for the affected customer to avoid
appearing incompetent in the self-service process. If an
employee not only fixes the problem but completely takes over
the transaction with other customers present, this could result in
a potential social cost of feeling inadequate in the self-service
process. In essence, the employee is signaling to others waiting
that this customer is not capable of completing the self-service
transaction in a timely manner. This type of recovery could also
enhance embarrassment for the customer and increase the
perceived time pressure to complete the transaction with the
employee taking over the transaction process. Additionally, an
employee overtaking a recovery could lead to lower overall
satisfaction and greater intentions to switch to a full-service
option. From a self-monitoring perspective, we expect that the
presence of other customers actually lowers customer
receptivity to employee intervention in the service recovery. The
customer wants the self-service failure resolved but does not
want to be seen as socially incapable of performing the self-
service transaction. Accordingly:
H2. Customers experiencing SST failure observed by other
waiting customers will be (a) more satisfied with the
transaction, (b) less likely to switch to the full-service
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
option on their next visit to the retailer, (c) less likely to
spread NWOM about the retailer, (d) less impacted by
perceived time pressure and (e) less embarrassed when
an employee merely fixes the problem and allows the
customer to complete the transaction than when the
employee completely takes over the transaction after
the failure has been resolved.
The source of differentiation between the responses to the two
scenarios should lie in the perceived isolated vs observed nature
of the customer’s experience with the SST failure. When the
employee represents the only audience in the service recovery,
letting the employee take over the transaction process will
provide more benefits to the customer to compensate for the
costs of the failure with little concerns of social inadequacy in
terms of self-monitoring. Conversely, when other customers
are present to witness the failure/recovery, the customer will be
more willing to take on the additional effort in the transaction
process to avoid the social costs of feeling inadequate in front of
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
others. In this case, the social evaluation of others is a greater
concern than the employee providing additional assistance in
the recovery process.
Method
To test these hypotheses, four scenarios were developed to
manipulate a 2 (employee takes over and finishes transaction vs
customer finishes transaction)  2 (customers waiting in line vs
no customers in line) experimental design. The setting for the
study was a self-service movie ticketing kiosk that would allow
patrons to purchase movie tickets for upcoming shows. This
setting was chosen because it is a relatively new technology
diffusing in the service landscape of movie theaters. Thus, the
recovery process of this SST may be unfamiliar to some
customers compared to well established SSTs. Utilizing a
college student panel from a southeastern school, previous
users of an SST movie ticketing kiosk were recruited. To
qualify for the survey, respondents had to denote the last time
and location they used an SST movie ticketing kiosk. This was
done to verify that an SST kiosk was available during that time
and at that location.
A total of 158 previous SST kiosk users were recruited for the
survey. Respondents were directed to an online survey where
one of four scenarios were randomly presented (35 1
respondents were in each scenario). The scenarios describe a
situation in which the respondent is going to purchase a ticket
for a movie showing multiple hours in the future but, because of
the popularity of the film, getting tickets before going to dinner
is a preferred plan. Next, the scenario describes that the
respondent finds the movie and specific show time and tries to
checkout but the SST interface freezes up during the
transaction. Thereafter, one of two recoveries options is
presented to the respondent. In the first recovery, respondents
were told that an employee comes over, resets the SST, and
finds the movie and desired show time again and gets the
customer back to the final checkout screen. The employee is
present during the remaining transaction until the movie tickets
are dispersed. In the second recovery scenario, the employee
simply resets the SST and lets the customer start over to find
the movie and show time themselves along with pay for the
tickets with no further help or assistance from the employee.
Journal of Services Marketing
The scenario also denotes whether other customers are present
or absent during the failure to examine the impact of an
audience on the outcomes. (See Appendix for the scenarios.)
As a post-survey manipulation check, participants answered
two questions inquiring whether other customers were waiting
and whether the employee/customer completed the checkout
process once the problem was resolved. The sample consisted
of 67 per cent female and the average age was 21.
Five dependent variables were measured at the end of the
scenario:
1 satisfaction with the SST transaction;
2 intentions to switch from a self-service to a full-service
option on the next visit;
3 propensity for NWOM;
4 perceived time pressure to complete the transaction; and
5 embarrassment.
The items were adopted from existing related research (Bougie
et al., 2003; Oliver and Swan, 1989; Spears and Singh, 2004;
Collier et al., 2015; Kelly and Jones, 1997) and were measured
on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). We also measured the concept of self-
monitoring or the propensity of customers to alter their
behavior in front of others from the research of Lennox and
Wolfe (1984). This variable was used as a covariate in the
analysis to control for differing levels of self-monitoring in the
recovery process.
The internal consistency for each construct was measured by
computing coefficient alpha. Each variable had a coefficient
alpha greater than 0.80 supporting the reliability of scale items.
To further assess the validity of our dependent variables, a
confirmatory factor analysis was performed. The results of the
analysis indicate the model’s adequate fit to the data ( x 2 =
487.33, df = 283, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06).
All items loaded on their respective constructs with t-values
ranging from 5.30 to 28.24. (See Appendix 2 for the full list of
items) With no concerns over the validity of the measures, a 2 
2 MANCOVA analysis was performed. The analysis revealed a
significant difference between recovery type and the presence/
absence of other customers with respect to the dependent
variables: Wilks l = 0.68, F(15, 398) = 3.94, p < 0.001 (See
Table I for the full analysis). The results of the main effects
found that each construct was significantly different across the
manipulations. Further, the univariate analyses provided
interesting insights with respect to the hypothesized
expectations. In an isolated setting when no other customers
were present during the failure, customer satisfaction was
significantly higher when the employee took over the service
recovery process instead of allowing the customer to finish it
(Memployee = 5.81, SD = 1.11; Mcustomer = 5.08, SD = 1.36, p =
0.01). In this instance, customers exhibit heightened
willingness to cede control back to the employee not only to fix
the problem but also to aid in completing the transaction.
Interestingly, employees aiding in an SST failure had a
dramatically different impact when other customers were
present. In the presence of others, customers rated their
satisfaction lower when an employee took over the failure
recovery and subsequent transaction completion. (Mcrowded =
4.52, SD = 1.31; Misolated = 5.81, SD = 1.11, p < 0.001).
Additionally, NWOM and perceived time pressure were all
 Self-service failure recovery Journal of Services Marketing
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White

Table I SST recovery with technology causing the failure

Means (SD) Satisfaction Switch NWOM Time pressure Embarrass
Other customers waiting– customer complete transaction 4.93 (1.20) 4.78 (1.22) 3.58 (1.53) 5.58 (1.20) 3.97 (1.89)
Other customers waiting– employee complete transaction 4.52 (1.31) 4.57 (1.66) 3.78 (1.52) 5.11 (1.52) 4.37 (1.78)
Isolated– customer complete transaction 5.08 (1.36) 3.98 (1.39) 2.98 (1.76) 4.24 (1.59) 3.27 (2.05)
Isolated– employee complete transaction 5.81 (1.11) 3.92 (1.81) 2.72 (1.40) 3.64 (1.63) 2.66 (1.80)
Multivariate statistics
Wilks k = 0.68 F-value = 3.94, p-value = < 0.001
Main effects test
Satisfaction: F-value = 8.15, p-value = < 0.001
Time pressure: F-value = 13.17, p-value = < 0.001
Switching: F-value = 2.76, p-value = 0.04
NWOM: F-value = 3.47, p-value = 0.01
Embarrass: F-value = 5.77, p-value = 0.001
Post hoc tests (p value significance)
C-isolated 3 E-isolated 0.01 0.87 0.45 0.08 0.16
E-others waiting 3 E-isolated < 0.001 0.06 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)

C-others waiting 3 E-others waiting 0.13 0.54 0.56 0.17 0.34

C-others waiting 3 C-isolated 0.57 0.03 0.09 < 0.001 0.11
Note: C-others waiting = customer completes transaction with others customers waiting in line; E-Others Waiting = employee completes transaction with
other customers waiting in line; C-isolated = customer completes transaction in an isolated setting; E-isolated = employee completes transaction in an
isolated setting; Items: Satisfaction: 1 – very dissatisfied; 7 – very satisfied; Switch: 1- not likely; 7 – very likely; NWOM, time pressure, perceived
embarrassment: 1 – strongly disagree; 7 – strongly agree

significantly higher when an employee took over an SST
transaction when others were present compared to an isolated
failure. Lastly, customers noted a significantly higher level of
embarrassment when the employee took over the transaction in
front of an audience (Mcrowded = 4.37, SD = 1.78; Misolated =
2.66, SD = 1.80, p < 0.001). Based on these findings, the
employee’s role preferred by the customer in an SST failure
was dependent on the social environment in which the failure
took place. In an isolated environment, employees’ taking over
the transaction ultimately leads to a better perceived service
experience. Conversely, in the presence of other patrons,
customers were embarrassed and felt greater time pressure to
complete the transaction when an employee took over the
service process. These findings underscore the notion that, in
line with self-monitoring theory, customers want to prove their
ability to complete a self-service transaction in the presence of
other customers.
Discussion
Do customers want to give up the “self” in self-service when
there is a problem? The results of Study 1 suggest this is the case
in the context of an isolated setting. Customers welcome this
extra level of help, ultimately enhancing evaluations of the
service experience. In an isolated setting, the results suggest
that customers see the added value of letting the employee
complete the transaction after a failure. One explanation for
these findings relates to the lack of social pressures or perceived
evaluation from others when completing the transaction.
Absence of other customers’ scrutiny likely enhanced the
receptivity toward the employee aiding in the self-service
process, which would arguably be more time efficient than the
customer having to complete a transaction after the failure has
been resolved.
As receptive as customers were to employees’ taking over a
transaction in an isolated environment, the exact opposite
appears to be the case with a waiting customer audience
present. Customer responses suggest that having an
employee take over the self-service process in front of others
created embarrassment and a higher perception that the
transaction needed to be completed quickly. Subsequently,
customers had substantially lower evaluations of the service
process when the employee intervened and fully carried out
the recovery, leading to greater intentions to switch to a full-
service option. With a greater potential for embarrassment
when an employee takes over while others are waiting,
customers will ultimately avoid a transaction method that
could cause social harm. Interestingly, although time
pressure was amplified in the presence of other patrons,
respondents expressed higher satisfaction when allowed to
complete the transaction compared to standing aside while
the employee finished the interaction. Upon further review,
these findings highlight the importance of social costs
compared to functional costs in a SST failure scenario. No
customer wants to feel inadequate in front of others, and an
employee taking over a transaction could drive the perception
that the customer is not skilled or experienced enough to
complete the transaction. Hence, in a crowded environment,
employees are better to resolve the immediate problem (i.e.,
the technical failure) and subsequently let the customer
complete the transaction to avoid embarrassment or
perceived pressure to complete the transaction quickly.
Even when customers are allowed to complete the
transaction themselves, Study 1 found that the presence of
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
other customers still promotes higher switching intentions than
when a customer completes a failed SST transaction in
isolation. This finding suggests that heavy traffic times during
the day will require a more involved service recovery attempt
outside of simply taking over the transaction. When a failure
occurs at no fault of the customer, having other patrons
publicly watching the customer recover from the transaction
could lead to increased anxiety. The employee would be well
served to apologize for the failure and remain present while the
customer (not the employee) completes the transaction,
assuring that no additional failures or delays occur. Employees
should take on the role of an aid in the process instead of
completely taking over the transaction.
Study 2: customer-induced SST failure and the
employee’s role
The previous experiment assumes that the failure was a direct
result of the technology having a problem. But what if the
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
customer is the cause of the self-service failure? Would this
change how receptive customers are to giving the “self” in self-
service back and allowing the employee to complete the
transaction? Previous research has noted that customers react
differently to an SST failure depending on the party at fault
(Snellman and Vihtkari, 2003). Additionally, Choi and Mattila
(2008) found that when the customer feels partially responsible
for an SST failure, service recovery evaluations were higher
than when the service provider was at fault. Attribution theory
(Heider, 1958) suggests that customers experiencing a self-
induced failure might be more willing to forgive the failure and
the costs attached to resolving it. However, conflicting research
findings suggest that consumers often have a self-serving bias
where a customer attributes successes to himself and failures to
the company (Yen et al., 2004). When a customer is the cause
of the self-service failure, do customers want more employee
intervention in the recovery process to prevent further delays,
or are customers still content to process the transaction apart
from employee intervention once the failure is resolved? Study
2 examines our hypotheses in a situation where the customer,
instead of the technology, is the cause of the failure. Does the
attribution of fault influence a customer’s response to an
employee’s involvement in an SST failure recovery process?
Subsequently, how do these two constructs interact to
influence the overall evaluation of the experience?
Method
The same four scenarios were used for this experiment as in
Study 1 except, instead of the SST causing the problem, the
customer causes the failure. The revised scenario reads:
You scan your credit card to pay for the movie tickets, but before the tickets
are dispensed, you notice that you purchased tickets for the current show
time instead of the desired future show time. You motion for an employee to
come over and help correct the problem.
As in Study 1, a college student panel recruited previous SST
movie ticket kiosk users. A total of 150 SST movie ticket kiosk
users were recruited and randomly assigned to one of the four
groups via an online survey. After reading the scenario,
respondents answered three manipulation questions that
assessed whether the SST area was crowded/isolated, whether
the customer/employee finished the transaction post-failure,
Journal of Services Marketing
and to whom the initial failure was attributed. The sample was
64 per cent female and the average age was 25.
Items measuring the five dependent variables from Study 1
were used again with the exact same scale items. We also
included the self-monitoring items from Study 1 to be used as a
covariate in Study 2. The validity of the items was assessed
again, and the reliability of the constructs remained at an
acceptable level (a > 0.80) with the confirmatory factor
analysis finding that the model fit the data, each item loading
strongly on its respective factor ( x 2 = 496.89, df = 283, CFI =
0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07).
The results of the MANCOVA analysis revealed a significant
interaction between who recovered from the failure (employee/
customer) and whether other customers were present/absent
when the customer caused the failure (Wilks l = 0.82, F(15,
360) = 1.72; p < 0.04). In contrast with Study 1, the main effects
test only observed satisfaction (F(3,138) = 2.97; p = 0.04) and
perceived time pressure (F(3,138) = 3.73, p = 0.01) as
significantly different across the groups. Per the univariate
analysis, a significant difference remains between employees
taking over the service process when other customers are present
compared to an isolated setting. Customers were significantly
more satisfied when an employee took over the transaction when
other customers were not present (Mcrowded =5.15, SD = 1.37;
Misolated = 5.97, SD = 1.12, p = 0.01). Additionally, when an
employee takes over the service failure recovery process with
other customers present, the perceived time pressure to complete
the transaction is significantly higher compared to the scenario
where an employee takes over in an isolated environment
(Mcrowded =4.62, SD = 1.54; Misolated = 3.53, SD = 1.76, p <
0.001). Consistent with Study 1, having the employee take over
in a crowded environment can elicit negative customer responses.
In Study 2, the situational impacts on NWOM, switching
intentions and embarrassment were muted, as compared to
Study 1, as these differences did not reach a level of significance.
With respect to scenarios in which the customer is left to
complete a transaction with no further assistance by the
employee, minimal differences emerged among any of the
constructs across experimental cells. Overall, the highest
satisfaction levels were observed when an employee took over the
transaction in isolation, followed by the customer completing the
transaction in isolation. Across both studies as self-monitoring
theory would predict, having a self-service failure in front of other
customers led to a worse experience regardless of the recovery
attempt and who was at fault for the failure.
To further assess the differences across the customer- and
technology-induced failures, we ran simple ANOVAs across
the failure types to determine if type of failure significantly
altered the service experience. Regarding overall evaluations,
the customer-induced failure was significantly higher than the
technical failure in satisfaction ratings for all types of recovery
settings. Figure 1 shows a graphical display of the results.
Similar to previous research, customer inducement of an SST
failure tends to alter the customer’s attitudes toward various
outcomes, perhaps because of a self-serving buffer. Customers
appear easier to satisfy after the failure and felt less negative
pressure when the failure was a direct result of the customer’s
mistake. Conversely, satisfaction levels were consistently lower
when the technology was at fault, supporting the conclusion
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
Figure 1 Satisfaction ratings compared across studies
SST Fault Customer Fault
7 presence of waiting customers in different servicescapes
6.5
6
5.5
5 pressure, but we also wanted to explore customers’ intentions
4.5
4
CROWDED ISOLATE EMPLOYEE CROWDED ISOLATE CUSTOMER
EMPLOYEE FINISHES CUSTOMER FINISHES
FINISHES FINISHES
Note: Scale items were on a 1 to 7 scale
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
that customers are less tolerant of technology failures,
especially if the failure takes place in front of other customers.
Study 3: how the servicescape influences
self-service recovery
In Study 3, we wanted to further explore self-monitoring and
the impact of waiting customers on the self-service recovery
preferences of customers. In the previous studies, we controlled
for the possible differences of customers’ self-monitoring
tendencies, but in Study 3 we wanted to explore whether the
self-service area in which a failure takes place could induce
higher self-monitoring feelings. Previous research has noted
that publicly consumed goods in a retail environment can make
customers acutely aware of others and, thus, increase self-
monitoring behaviors (Graeff, 1996). Additionally, Rose and
DeJesus (2007) found that consumers could have an elevated
or motivated cognition to self-monitor during a consumer
buying process. Thus, we wanted to explore this topic further
by considering whether the layout of a self-service area could
heighten customers’ feelings of self-monitoring because of the
visibility of customers watching a transaction take place. Self-
service areas are usually designed in either a quad set up where
all self-service customers form a single line, and then proceed to
one of four (or more) self-service machines that are laid out in a
box format or in multiple single-file lines designed to be similar
to a traditional full-service checkout. With the quad set up, all
self-service customers are consolidated into one designated
area, thus forcing all customers to view every transaction taking
place in the quad until a checkout becomes available. In the
alternative setup, multiple single-file lines form with self-service
customers disbursed across multiple lines, and customers
usually have obstructed views of one another. Hence, the
servicescape layout of the self-service area could highlight the
presence of other customers in a way that enhances self-
monitoring. This increased self-monitoring should impact
customers’ preference for handling of the recovery process as
they hope to protect their self-image as a customer who is a
capable self-service user.
Journal of Services Marketing
Method
For this study, we extend our findings by exploring another
self-service context while also further examining how the
impacts the recovery of an SST failure. Not only did we want to
examine the impact of different types of SST areas but also
wanted to control the specific number of customers waiting in
line, to further control for the effect of customers waiting in line
during a failure. As in the previous two studies, we explored
intentions to switch to a full-service option and perceived time
to leave the provider entirely based on how the recovery process
was handled. Additionally, for this study, we specifically
measured customers’ self-monitoring feelings during the
recovery process instead of using it as a covariate as we did in
the previous studies.
The setting for this study was a grocery store self-checkout
area. We chose this setting because grocery stores prominently
display both types of SST setups, quad design and multiple
single-line designs. The diversity of grocery store self-service
areas allows for a rich test of how the servicescape and
specifically waiting customers in the servicescape influence
recovery attitudes.
A 2  2 research design was used with respondents exposed
to one of the four scenarios, where the customer is either in a
quad SST checkout area or in a multiple single file line SST
area. Sample pictures of a quad and single-line SST design were
provided in the survey. Consistent with Study 1, when the SST
has a technical failure, either the employee comes over, simply
fixes the problem and allows the customer to complete the
transaction, or the employee comes over, fixes the problem and
then completes the transaction for the customer. Across all the
scenarios, respondents are given the information that they are
waiting in line to use the self-service checkout area and when it
is their turn at the self-service checkout machine, there are two
customers waiting in line behind them. (See Appendix 1 for
examples of scenarios).
Respondents for this study were recruited from Amazon
Mechanical TURK. To qualify for the survey, respondents had
to be previous self-service checkout users in a grocery setting.
Respondents were paid for their participation and were free to
exit the survey at any time. Attention and manipulation check
measures were placed throughout the survey to assure that the
respondents were providing trustworthy responses.
Respondents were randomly exposed to one of the four
scenarios and were asked to answer the following questions, as
if this scenario had actually happened to them. A total of 180
respondents filled out the survey but because of attention check
failures five respondents were dropped leaving a total of 175
respondents (40 1 respondents for each scenario). The average
age of the respondent was 35 with 52 per cent of the sample
being male.
The items for intentions to switch to a full-service option and
perceived time pressure were the same items used in the
previous two studies. For intentions to leave the retailer, we
adapted a three-item scale from Spears and Singh (2004) that
asked how likely would the respondent be able to switch to
another grocery store because of this incident with the anchors
of definitely would not/definitely would; Probably not/
Probably; and Not likely/Very Likely. Self-monitoring was
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
measured using an abbreviated three-item scale from Lennox
and Wolfe (1984) (Appendix). The reliability of all the items
were assessed again, and all constructs had a Cronbach’s alpha
level greater than .80.
After assessing the validity of the measures, a MANOVA
analysis was run and the results found a significant interaction
across the scenarios (Wilks l = 0.19, F(12, 510) = 2.90 and
p <0.001). With intentions to switch to a full-service option, the
main effects test found a significant relationship (F(3,171) =
2.92 and p = 0.03) across the scenarios. In the univariate test,
the results of the analysis found that when an employee tried to
fix and take over the self-service process in a quad setting
(Memployee = 3.99, SD = 1.89) this produced a significantly
higher intention to switch to a full-service option than when the
employee simply fixed the problem and let the customer
complete the transaction (Mcustomer = 3.13, SD = 1.74; p =
0.03). Additionally, in the quad setting where more customers
are potentially watching a customer experience a failure, an
employee taking over and completing the transaction process
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
led to higher switching intentions than when an employee took
over and completed the transaction process in an individual
single file line SST design (Mquad = 3.99, SD = 1.89; Mindividual-
line = 3.06, SD = 1.75; p = 0.02). Consistent with our previous
studies, when there is a perceived heightened number of waiting
customers watching a failure take place, the affected customer
simply wants the employee to fix the problem and let the
customer complete the transaction without any further
assistance.
Customers’ intentions of leaving the retailer after a self-
service failure were not as strong as switching to full-service
intentions. In part, these findings offer some encouragement
for retailers, as customers being dissatisfied with a checkout
option does not necessarily mean they are willing to leave the
store as whole. The main effect test for leaving the retailer was
significant (F(3,171) = 2.84, p = 0.03) across the scenarios. In
the quad setting, having the employee take over the transaction
did not have a significant effect compared to allowing the
customer to complete the transaction (p = 0.42). The means
were roughly equivalent between these scenarios, but there was
a significant difference between an employee taking over the
transaction in a quad setting (Mquad = 2.37 SD = 1.67) and an
individual single file setting (Mindividual-line = 1.52, SD = 1.06;
p < 0.001). Again, when an employee took over the transaction
where it was more visible to other customers, this led to a strong
negative reaction by the affected customer.
To further examine whether waiting customers influenced
SST users, we wanted to explore how customers’ self-monitor
their own behavior when an SST failure occurs with others
watching. The main effects test found a significant difference
across the scenarios in customers’ self-monitoring (F(3,171) =
3.79; p = 0.01). When an employee took over the transaction in
the quad set up, self-monitoring was significantly higher than
when the customer completed the transaction in the same set
up (Memployee = 4.85 SD = 1.05; Mcustomer = 4.38, SD = 0.95;
p = 0.05). Similarly, self-monitoring was significantly higher for
consumers in the individual single file line when an employee
took over the transaction than when the customer was allowed
to complete the transaction after the failure (Memployee = 4.84
SD = 1.25; Mcustomer = 4.23, SD = 1.05; p < 0.001). In both
SST settings when other customers are waiting and watching a
Journal of Services Marketing
failure occur, the affected customer would rather complete the
transaction themselves to protect their image in front of other
customers. Having an employee complete the transaction for
them could possibly reflect poorly on the user’s SST ability or
necessary skills to complete the transaction without further
problems or delays.
Finally, perceived time pressure was explored to see if
customers feel pressure to complete a transaction after a failure
occurs. The main effects test was significant across the
scenarios (F(3,171) = 4.14 and p < 0.001). In the quad setting,
when the customer completes the transaction, perceived time
pressure was significantly higher than when the employee
completes the transaction after the failure (Memployee = 3.12
SD = 1.80; Mcustomer = 3.97, SD = 1.46; p = 0.02).
Furthermore, customers completing the transaction themselves
in the individual single file line format had higher feelings of
perceived time pressure than when the employee took over
(Memployee = 2.65 SD = 1.86; Mcustomer = 3.25, SD = 1.77; p =
0.10). Across the two formats, customers had higher levels of
time pressure in the quad setting than in the individual single
line design (p = 0.05). The results of the time pressure analysis
add an interesting twist to our results in that customers have a
heightened level of self-monitoring during a failure while other
customers are waiting and prefer to handle the transaction
themselves, but, at the same time, they feel a greater sense of
pressure to complete the transaction quickly even when the
failure was not a result of their own actions.
Discussion & managerial implications
Given the increasing implementation of self-service options in a
widening array of service industries (Friedenberg, 2014; Power,
2014), research in this arena must assume a more
comprehensive approach toward understanding customer
expectations and resulting evaluations of the provider’s SST
failure–recovery strategy. This series of experiments provides
insight with respect to multiple important elements of the
recovery. First, in isolation respondents are more satisfied when
the employee takes full responsibility for completing the
transaction post-failure, regardless of fault attribution. This
finding highlights that customers are happy with the employee’s
taking on the additional effort to not only rectify the problem
but also to complete their transaction. In a private setting where
time pressure and embarrassment are less of a concern,
customers want employees to expend that little extra effort to
fully recover from the failure. Across all the scenarios,
customers were the most satisfied and more likely to continue
using an SST if the employee took over the transaction as long
as other customers were not present. These results run counter
to traditional thoughts on self-service that suggest customers
want as little employee interaction as possible, even when a
failure occurs. Our findings show that service recovery efforts
need to go beyond simply “fixing” the problem to compensate
for the potential time and effort costs that now need to be made
to finish a transaction. When the social costs of other customers
watching the recovery are removed, customers prefer a higher
level of service recovery in a self-service transaction.
Second, this research reveals the social and functional
complexities associated with executing a satisfactory SST failure
recovery, particularly with respect to determining the extent to
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
which the employee – or customer – should control the attempt.
Contrary to the results of the isolated setting, customers do not
prefer more employee interaction when other customers are
present during the failure. Our results suggest that having an
employee take over the transaction fostered higher feelings of
embarrassment and time pressure, which led to lower
satisfaction levels. In this situation, a higher level of service
recovery (more employee involvement) led to lower satisfaction.
Customers want to maintain their self-image in front of others,
demonstrating that they are a fully capable SST customer who
does not need an employee to complete their transaction like a
novice or a first-time participant. The social costs of appearing
inadequate outweigh the benefits produced by a higher level of
employee involvement in the recovery process. Additionally, in
situations where the technology is clearly the source of failure,
the presence of others stimulates higher time pressure, yet less
positive evaluations when the employee completes the
transaction for the customer. These findings have important
insights for managers, as the employee’s role is to facilitate and
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
not to commandeer the transaction when other patrons are
viewing the recovery. The amplified time pressure, however,
would suggest that employees should remain near the SST to
ensure the customer can successfully complete the transaction
in a timely manner.
Third, when customers are at fault, the nuances of their
recovery evaluations are substantially less pronounced, as
evidenced by the lack of significant differences across Study 2.
One explanation for generally higher reported satisfaction in
customer fault situations would be that when the consumer
assumes responsibility for the problem, he/she takes ownership
of the fault and consequently becomes more flexible with
respect to desired recovery protocol. In other words, the
priority becomes fixing the problem to alleviate the situation,
and not managing perceptions of other patrons. Further,
negative emotions or embarrassment may result from the
customer’s recognition of self as the cause of the problem,
potentially overwhelming the ability to critically evaluate the
specifics of the recovery.
Fourth, customers tend to feel greater time pressure when
they are responsible for the completion of a self-service
transaction that has failed, but even that increased pressure
does not outweigh the importance of saving face in front of
other customers. When other customers are present and
potentially witnessing the failure and recovery efforts, the
affected customer would rather feel rushed than give the
impression to fellow customers that he/she does not know what
he/she is doing. Ultimately, this research highlights the
importance of appreciating the social environment in which
SST failure occurs and allocating employee resources
accordingly. Situational awareness and the flexibility to select
the appropriate recovery path allows customers to protect
themselves from social embarrassment and ultimately produces
a better self-service experience customized to the customer’s
current situation.
Finally, service providers and retailers need to be mindful of
how an SST area is designed, specifically as it relates to the
amount of attention that could be directed to a customer
completing a transaction. Our results show that setting up a
self-service area where all self-service users are funneled into
one area draws further attention to customers performing a
Journal of Services Marketing
transaction. This subsequently promotes more self-monitoring
behaviors of customers, which heightens the possible negative
feelings that are experienced when a failure occurs. Service
providers need to be acutely aware that the design of a self-
service area can directly influence the preferred type of service
recovery with a self-service transaction. Though pushing all
self-service users into a quad setting may save retail space, it
also increases the visibility of failures and hence self-
monitoring, along with potential feelings of embarrassment
because of employees’ having to come over an aid in the
transaction process. While previous research has examined
service recovery in an environmental bubble, we argue that the
servicescape of a self-service area can and does directly
influence self-monitoring behaviors and subsequently impact
recovery preferences.
Limitations and future research
With increased SST implementation across service industries,
further expansion of this research scope is warranted to
generalize more fully the findings observed here. Hence, one
variable of additional importance is the type of service being
provided. The movie ticket purchase services used here
generally imply customers’ seeking hedonic benefits (a movie)
associated with relatively low-risk loss in the event of failure. It
should be noted that customers’ use of utilitarian-focused SSTs
for completion of more highly involved and potentially
confidential transactions, such as automated teller machine
(ATM) banking and employment applications, could lead to
additional considerations for employee involvement during a
failure. As well, we did not control for the characteristics of the
employees or customers during our studies. future research
could examine how the psychological tendencies and
accompanying behaviors of an employee could influence
recovery preferences. Another area of research could further
explore how the length/time of recovery and overall motivations
for customers seeking employee assistance influence recovery
evaluations. Finally, recruiting procedures for the current
research purposively limited the sample to SST users, to
control for extraneous effects of nonuser attitudes toward self-
service adoption in general. However, the observed trends
toward encouraging customer adoption of SST for services
(Galer, 2014) merit understanding nonuser perceptions, as
these customers may exhibit differences in expectation that
would inform recovery strategy upon their expected future
adoption of SST.
References
Ariely, D. and Levav, J. (2000), “Sequential choice in group
setting: taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 279-290.
Bambauer-Sachse, S. and Rabeson, L.E. (2015), “Service
recovery for moderate and high involvement services”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 331-343.
Blodgett, J.G., Granbois, D.H. and Walters, R.G. (1993),
“The effects of perceived justice on complainants’ negative
word-of-mouth behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 4,
pp. 399-428.
Bengtsson, S.L., Dolan, R.J. and Passingham, R.E. (2011),
“Priming for self-esteem influences monitoring of one’s own
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
performance”, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 417-425.
Bodey, K. and Grace, D. (2006), “Segmenting service
complainers and noncomplainers on the basis of consumer
characteristics”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 178-187.
Bougie, R., Pieters, R. and Zeelenberg, M. (2003), “Angry
customers don’t come back, they get back: the experience
and behavioral intentions of anger and dissatisfaction in
services”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 377-393.
Choi, S. and Mattila, A.S. (2008), “Perceived controllability
and service expectations: influences on customer reactions
following service failure”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 24-30.
Chung-Herrera, B.G., Gonzalez, G.R. and Hoffman, K.D.
(2010), “When demographic differences exist: an analysis of
service failure and recovery among diverse participants”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 128-141.
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
Collier, J.E. and Barnes, D.C. (2015), “Self-service delight:
exploring the hedonic aspects of self-service”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 986-993.
Collier, J.E., Moore, R.S., Horky, A. and Moore, M.L. (2015),
“Why the little things matter: exploring situational influences
on customers’ self-service technology decisions”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 703-710.
Dabholkar, P.A. and Spaid, B.I. (2012), “Service failure and
recovery in using technology-based self-service: effects on
user attributions and satisfaction”, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1415-1432.
Ding, D.X., Hu, J.P. and Sheng, O.R.L. (2011),
“E-SELFQUAL: a scale for measuring online self-service
quality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 5,
pp. 508-515.
Dixon, A.L., Spiro, R.L. and Jamil, M. (2001), “Successful
and unsuccessful sales calls: measuring salespeople
attributions and behavioral intentions”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 64-78.
Dong, B., Evans, K.E. and Zou, S. (2008), “The effects of
customer participation in co-created service recovery”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 123-137.
Economist.com. (2011), “Sometimes you just can’t take it
anymore”, available at: www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/
2011/11/airport-kiosks (accessed 23 January 2017).
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 Nos 4/5,
pp. 316-327.
Friedenberg, M. (2014), “Retail must reinvent itself for the
omnichannel future”, available at: www.cio.com/article/
749879/Retail_Must_Reinvent_Itself_for_the_Omnichannel_
Future (accessed 16 April 2014).
Galer, S. (2014), “Three steps to boost employee engagement”,
available at: www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2014/04/16/three-steps-
to-boost-employee-engagement/ (accessed 16 April 2014).
Graeff, T. (1996), “Image congruence effects on product
evaluations: the role of self-monitoring and public/private
consumption”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 481-499.
Journal of Services Marketing
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Holloway, B.B. and Sharon, E.B. (2003), “Service failure in
online retailing: a recovery opportunity”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 92-105.
Hu, H.-H. and Parsa, H.G. (2011), “Self-monitoring, dining
companions and the usage of alternative currencies”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 228-237.
Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W. and Fornell, C. (1995),
“Rational and adaptive performance expectations in a
customer satisfaction framework”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 128-140.
Kelly, K.M. and Jones, W.H. (1997), “Assessment of
dispositional embarrassability”, Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An
International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 307-333.
Kim, N. and Ulgado, F.M. (2012), “The effect of on-the-spot
versus delayed compensation: the moderating role of failure
severity”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 158-167.
Kurt, D., Inman, J.J. and Argo, J.J. (2011), “The influence of
friends on consumer spending: the role of agency-
communion orientation and self-monitoring”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 741-754.
Latane, B. (1981), “The psychology of social impact”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 343-356.
Lennox, R.D. and Wolfe, R.N. (1984), “Revision of the self-
monitoring scale”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 1349-1364.
McDonell, J., Strom-Gottfried, K.J., Burton, D.L. and Yaffe, J.
(2006), “Behaviorism, social learning, and exchange
theory”, Contemporary Human Behavior Theory: A Critical
Perspective for Social Work, Allyn & Bacon, Chicago, IL, Vol.
349 No. 85.
Mattila, A. (2010), “Do women like options more than men?
An examination in the context of service recovery”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 499-508.
Mattila, A., Cho, W. and Ro, H. (2011), “The role of self-
service technologies in restoring justice”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 348-355.
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. 6 No. 2, pp. 61-83.
Miller, R.S. (1996), Embarrassment: Poise and Peril in Everyday
Life, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Noone, B.M. (2012), “Overcompensating for severe service
failure: perceived fairness and effect on negative word-of-
mouth intent”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 342-351.
Oh, H., Miyoung, J. and Seyhmus, B. (2013), “Tourists’
adoption of self-service technologies at resort hotels”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 692-699.
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.
Power, B. (2014), “Redbox breathes life into movie rental
scene”, available at: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/
1200471-redbox-chain-breathes-new-life-into-movie-rental-
scene) (accessed 15 April 2014).
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
Puccinelli, N.M., Deshpande, R. and Isen, A.M. (2007),
“Should I stay or should I go? Mood congruity, self-
monitoring, and retail context preference”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 640-648.
Richins, M.L. (1983), “Negative word-of-mouth by
dissatisfied customers: a pilot study”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Robertson, N. and Shaw, R.N. (2005), “Conceptualizing the
influence of the self-service technology context on
consumer voice”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 33-50.
Rose, P. and DeJesus, S.P. (2007), “A model of motivated
cognition to account for the link between self-monitoring
and materialism”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 93-115.
Schoefer, K. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2008), “The role of
emotions in translating perceptions of (in)justice into
postcomplaint behavioral responses”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 91-103.
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
Schunk, D.H. and Zimmerman, B.J. (1998), Self-Regulated
Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice, Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Sharp, B. (2014), “Are self-service machines in our
supermarkets really the way forward? The Independent”,
available at: www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-
and-features/are-selfservice-machines-in-our-supermarkets-
really-the-way-forward-9198140.html) (accessed 16 April
2014).
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N. and Wagner, J. (1999), “A model of
customer satisfaction with service encounters involving
failure and recovery”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 356-372.
Snellman, K. and Vihtkari, T. (2003), “Customer complaining
behaviour in technology-based service encounters”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 217-231.
Snyder, M. (1974), “Self-monitoring of expressive behavior”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 526-537.
Snyder, M. (1979), “Self-monitoring process”, in Berkowitz,
L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 12,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 85-128.
Spears, N. and Singh, S.N. (2004), “Measuring attitude toward
the brand and purchase intentions”, Journal of Current Issues
and Research in Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 53-66.
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.
Ward, J.C. and Ostrom, A.L. (2006), “Complaining to the
masses: the role of protest-framing in customer-created
complaint web sites”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 220-230.
White, A., Breazeale, M. and Collier, J.E. (2012), “The effects
of perceived fairness on customer responses to forced SST
migration”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 250-261.
Yen, H.R., Gwinner, K.P. and Su, W. (2004), “The impact of
customer participation and service expecations on locus
attributions following service failure”, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Journal of Services Marketing
Zhou, Y., Huang, M., Tsang, A. and Zhou, N. (2013),
“Recovery strategy for group service failures”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1133-1156.
Zhu, Z., Nakata, C., Sivakumar, K. and Grewal, D. (2007),
“Self-service technology effectiveness: the role of design
features and individual traits”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 492-506.
Zhu, Z., Nakata, C., Sivakumar, K. and Grewal, D. (2013), “Fix
it or leave it? Customer recovery from self-service technology
failures”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Further reading
Collier, J.E. and Kimes, S.E. (2013), “Only if it is convenient:
understanding how convenience influences self-service
technology evaluation”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 39-51.
Appendix 1
Machine at fault – employee recovers – isolated
On Friday night, you and a friend decide to go to dinner and
see a highly anticipated movie that has just been released.
You decide to go and get your movie tickets before getting
dinner to make sure you get a seat. At the movie theater, you
approach a self-service ticket kiosk to purchase your tickets
for a show later in the night. After finding your movie and
the desired time of the show, you move to the checkout
screen. You scan your credit card to pay for the movie tick-
ets but before the tickets are dispensed the kiosk interface
screen freezes. Noticing no other customers around you,
you motion for an employee to come over and help correct
the problem. The employee apologizes and informs you that
sometimes the kiosk locks up when there is heavy use and
simply needs to be reset. After cancelling out your previous
attempt to purchase the tickets, the employee resets the
kiosks and proceeds to the main menu. With no other cus-
tomers waiting to use the kiosk, the employee finds your
desired movie and show time and asks you to swipe your
credit card again. This time the kiosk presents a confirma-
tion screen and the tickets for the future show are dispensed.
You take your tickets and proceed to dinner before your
movie.
Machine at fault – customer recovers – others
present
On Friday night, you and a friend decide to go to dinner and
see a highly anticipated movie that has just been released. You
decide to go and get your movie tickets before getting dinner
to make sure you get a seat. At the movie theater, you
approach a self-service ticket kiosk to purchase your tickets for
a show later in the night. After finding your movie and the
desired time of the show, you move to the checkout screen.
You scan your credit card to pay for the movie tickets but
before the tickets are dispensed the kiosk interface screen
freezes. Noticing the growing line of customers behind you,
you motion for an employee to come over and help correct the
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
problem. The employee apologizes and informs you that
sometimes the kiosk locks up when there is heavy use and sim-
ply needs to be reset. After cancelling out your previous
attempt to purchase the tickets, the employee resets the kiosks.
With a line of customers now waiting to use the kiosk, you find
the desired movie and show time again and swipe your credit
card. This time the kiosk presents a confirmation screen and
the tickets for the future show are dispensed. You take your
tickets and proceed to dinner before your movie.
Customer at fault – employee recovers – others
present
On Friday night, you and a friend decide to go to dinner and
see a highly anticipated movie that has just been released.
You decide to go and get your movie tickets before getting
dinner to make sure you get a seat. At the movie theater, you
approach a self-service ticket kiosk to purchase your tickets
for a show later in the night. After finding your movie, you
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
move to the checkout screen. You scan your credit card to
pay for the movie tickets, but before the tickets are
dispensed you notice that you purchased tickets for the
current show time instead of the desired future show time.
Noticing the growing line of customers behind you, you
motion for an employee to come over and help correct the
problem. The employee apologizes that you had a problem
and states that he will need to reset your transaction. After
cancelling out your previous attempt to purchase the tickets,
the employee proceeds to the main menu. With a line of
customers waiting to use the kiosk behind you, the employee
finds your desired movie and show time and asks you to
swipe your credit card again. This time the kiosk presents a
confirmation screen and the tickets for the future show are
dispensed. You take your tickets and proceed to dinner
before your movie.
Customer at fault – customer recovers – isolated
On Friday night, you and a friend decide to go to dinner and
see a highly anticipated movie that has just been released. You
decide to go and get your movie tickets before getting dinner
to make sure you get a seat. At the movie theater, you
approach a self-service ticket kiosk to purchase your tickets
for a show later in the night. After finding your movie, you
move to the checkout screen. You scan your credit card to
pay for the movie tickets, but before the tickets are
dispensed you notice that you purchased tickets for the
current show time instead of the desired future show time.
Noticing no other customers around you, you motion for an
employee to come over and help correct the problem. The
employee apologizes that you had a problem and states that
he will need to reset your transaction. After cancelling out
your previous attempt to purchase the tickets, the employee
proceeds to the main menu. With no other customers
waiting to use the kiosk, you find the desired movie and
future show time and swipe your credit card. This time the
kiosk presents a confirmation screen and the tickets for the
future show are dispensed. You take your tickets and
proceed to dinner before your movie.
Journal of Services Marketing
Quad SST set up – employee recovers
You arrive at the grocery store, complete your shopping and
decide to use the self-service checkout. You proceed to a single
line of waiting customers that feeds four self-scanning stations
placed in a quad design. You wait in line and watch the other
customers in the quad scanning their groceries until a self-scan
machine becomes available. You then approach the available
self-scan machine and start the check-out process. You finish
scanning most of your items when the self-service screen
freezes and does not allow you to scan the next item. Noticing
two customers waiting in line to use the self-scan machines,
you motion for an attendant to come over and help correct the
problem. The attendant apologizes and informs you that
sometimes the kiosk locks up and simply needs to be reset.
After clearing out your scanned order, the attendant resets the
kiosk and then proceeds to rescan all of your items for you and
completes the checkout process all the way to the payment
screen. You pay, take your groceries and leave the store.
Single line set up – customer recovers
You arrive at the grocery store, complete your shopping and
decide to use the self-service checkout. You proceed to the
self-scanning station. The self-service area has four self-
scanning machines with a line that forms behind each
machine. You select a line and watch the customer in front
of you scan their groceries. After that customer finishes, you
approach the self-service technology and start the check-out
process. You finish scanning most of your items when the
self-service screen freezes and does not allow you to scan the
next item. Noticing two customers waiting to use the self-
scan machine you are using, you motion for an attendant to
come over and help correct the problem. The attendant
apologizes and informs you that sometimes the kiosk locks
up and simply needs to be reset. After clearing out your
scanned order, the attendant resets the kiosk and proceeds
to the main menu where you can rescan your groceries.
Once the menu is available, the attendant returns to the
employee station and allows you to complete the remaining
transaction. After rescanning your entire order, you finish
the checkout process, pay, take your groceries and leave the
store.
Appendix 2
Scale items
Satisfaction
How satisfied would you be with the way in which the problem
with the self-service kiosk was handled:
 very dissatisfied-very satisfied;
 unhappy-happy;
 frustrated-pleased; and
 very unfavorable-very favorable.
Switching to a full service option
How likely would you be to switch from this self-service
method of buying tickets to a full-service option:
 Self-service failure recovery
Joel E. Collier, Michael Breazeale and Allyn White
 definitely would not-definitely would;
 probably not- probably; and
 not likely- very likely.
Negative word of mouth
Based on the way in which the self-service problem was
handled in the scenario:
 I would likely say negative things about this experience.
 I would not recommend using this self-service option to
my friends and relatives.
 I would discourage friends and relatives from using this
self-service option at this movie theater.
Time pressure
 I would feel pressed for time because others were waiting.
Downloaded by UMEA UNIVERSITY At 03:01 17 October 2017 (PT)
 I would feel rushed because others wanted to use the
checkout option.
 I would feel the need to hurry because I would not want to
keep other customers waiting.
 I would feel that the problem I experienced negatively
impacted other customers.
 I would feel that the problem I experienced caused a
problem for other customers.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Journal of Services Marketing
Susceptibility to embarrassment
 I feel uncomfortable in a group of people.
 I probably care too much about how I come across to
others.
 I feel humiliated if I make a mistake in front of a group.
 I am very much afraid of making a mistake in public.
 I often feel unsure of myself.
 It is unsettling to be the center of attention.
 I often worry about looking stupid.
 I am concerned about what others think of me.
 I worry about making a fool of myself.
 What other people think of me is very important.
Self-monitoring
 In social situations, I have the ability to alter my behavior
if I feel something else is called for.
 I am often able to read other peoples’ true emotions from
their eyes.
 I have found that I can adjust my behavior to meet the
requirements of any situation I find myself in.
Corresponding author
Joel E. Collier can be contacted at: jcollier@business.
msstate.edu