Encouraging Existing Customers to Switch to Self-Service Technologies: Put a Little Fun in

Their Lives
Author(s): James M. Curran and Matthew L. Meuter
Source: Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Fall, 2007), pp. 283-298
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40470306
Accessed: 09-04-2019 04:37 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40470306?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ENCOURAGING EXISTING CUSTOMERS TO SWITCH TO SELF-SERVICE
TECHNOLOGIES: PUT A LITTLE FUN IN THEIR LIVES
James M. Curran and Matthew L. Meuter

This research examines factors influencing the consumer decision to alter how to interact with a firm and
adopt a new technology-based means of consuming a service. Two central factors in the introduction of
self-service technologies (SSTs)are the use of the technology and that the customer must change existing
behavior patterns. A structural model relating attitudes and anticipated outcomes to intentions to change
existing behavior is tested in a banking context. Key findings are theoretical (anticipated outcomes with
attitudes are better predictors of intentions) and practical (fun is more important than utility influenc-
ing adoption of SSTs, even in a banking context not normally associated with fun). We conclude with
managerial implications and directions for future research.

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Technology has integrated into many aspects of our lives
over recent years and service providers continue to look
for ways to integrate various technologies into the service
encounter. For example, in 2005, consumers in the United
States conducted 10.5 billion automated teller machine
(ATM)transactions at 396,000 ATM terminals (Hall 2006).
In addition, other banking technologies such as online
banking continue to proliferate. There are a number of
good reasons to introduce technologies such as extending
business hours (Dabholkar 1996), managing capacity (Radas
and Shugan 1998), customization (Meuter et al. 2000),
and utilizing customer resources to produce the service
(Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002). It has also been suggested
that the design, functionality, and perceived innovative-
ness of technology-based customer interfaces can enhance
perceptions of quality, encourage repeat patronage, and
result in increased loyalty to the firm (Kirca, ]ayachandran,
and Bearden 2005; Seybold 2001; Smith 2000; Zemke and
Connell an 2001).
One type of technological interface is a self-service
technology (SST), defined as a technological interface that
allows customers to produce and consume services with-
out direct assistance from employees (Meuter et al. 2000).
While some SSTshave become widely adopted, others have
James M. Curran (Ph.D., University of Rhode Island), Assistant Pro-
fessor of Marketing, University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee,
College of Business Administration, Sarasota, FL, curranj@sar
.usf.edu.
Matthew L. Meuter (Ph.D., Arizona State University), Profes-
sor of Marketing, Department of Finance and Marketing, Col-
lege of Business, California State University-Chico, Chico, CA,
mmeuter@csuchico.edu.
This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
become very expensive methods to serve a small market
segment and can be a drain on firm resources (Kauffman
and Lally 1994). A challenge for service providers introduc-
ing SSTs is to understand what features of the technology
will attract or repel potential users as well as understanding
how to present the technologies as an attractive alternative
for customers.
Although it can be a daunting task to attract new cus-
tomers to the firm, it can be just as difficult to get current
customers to change how they interact with the firm. The
adoption of SSTs by existing customers requires a shift
in their behavioral patterns, which may require extensive
encouragement or justification by the firm. This research
extends the existing literature on the impact of consumer
attitudes on technology adoption by examining the role
of anticipated outcomes as a mediating construct between
attitudes and behavioral intentions regarding a change in
behavior.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
There is a great deal of support in the marketing literature
for the inclusion of consumer attitudes in the adoption of
technology decision (Curran, Meuter, and Surprenant 2003;
Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002; Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw
1989). Although attitudes have been shown to playa key
role in SST adoption, other research has demonstrated
the need to explore additional factors (Meuter et al. 2005;
Parasuraman 2000; Walker et al. 2002). This research will
The authors thank three anonymous reviewers and the editor for
their helpful comments in the development of this manuscript.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 15, no. 4 (fall 2007), pp. 283-298.
© 2007 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN 1069-6679/2007 $9.50 + 0.00.
001 10.2753/MTPI069-6679150401
284 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
further explore the effects of attitudes in tandem with other
relevant constructs.
Attitudes
An attitude is defined as "a psychological tendency that
is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some
degree of favor or disfavor" (Eagly and Chaiken 1993, p. 1),
and attitudes have been given a great deal of attention
when researchers investigate the adoption of technologies
(Adams, Nelson, and Todd 1992; Davis 1989; Davis, Bagozzi,
and Warshaw 1989; Yoh et al. 2003). Given that custom-
ers will have formed attitudes toward the service delivery
options they are currently using, when introducing a new
option, it may be difficult to encourage switching. Research
has shown that customers develop attitudes toward tech-
nologies that they have not yet tried and, when customers
have very positive attitudes toward currently used service
delivery options, they may be reluctant to change (Curran,
Meuter, and Surprenant 2003).
Other research has expanded the notion of the attitude
and behavior connection to conclude that there may be
more than one relevant attitude target for a given situation
and that attitudes, and, ultimately, behavioral intentions,
develop sequentially or in a hierarchical fashion (Brown and
Stayman 1992; Curran, Meuter, and Surprenant 2003; Eagly
and Chaiken 1993; Kinney and McDaniel 1996; MacKenzie
and Lutz 1989; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986; Mittal
1990; Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml 1994). Research
in the services arena has demonstrated that consumers can
develop attitudes toward many distinct elements in a service
encounter, such as frontline employees (Sparks, Bradley, and
Callan 1997), the servicescape (Bitner 1992), and the service
provider or firm in general (Andreassen 2001). Similarly,
it has been shown that consumers can have separate atti-
tudes toward various SST options and a more generalized
attitude toward overall technology (Curran, Meuter, and
Surprenant 2003). Given that there can be separate and
distinct attitudes involved in consumer decision making,
it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1: Consumer attitudes toward specific targets
will bepositively related to generalized attitudes toward
the service provider and generalized attitudes toward
SSTs.
For the purposes of this research, several attitudes toward
specific targets are included. These targets are for the three
SSTbanking technologies (ATM,bank by phone, and online
banking) and the frontline employees that may provide
the same services. Two generalized attitudes will also be
examined. These are the overall attitudes toward the service
This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
provider and the overall attitudes toward SSTs.These two
generalized attitudes are specifically relevant to any service
encounter that may include the use of an SST.
Expectations/ Anticipated Outcomes
Customer expectations are beliefs about a service delivery
experience that is about to occur. These beliefs are then
used as a reference point of comparison to the actual per-
formance received to generate opinions of service quality
and influence future intentions (Oliver 1980). Customers
can have expectations for a variety of dimensions for each
service encounter and are likely to have notions of an
ideal level and a minimum tolerable level of performance
(Cadotte, Woodruff, and Ienkins 1987;Teas 1993; Zeithaml,
Berry, and Parasuraman 1993). Sources for these service ex-
pectations can be service promises made by the firm (Bitner
1995), prior consumer experiences (Cadotte, Woodruff, and
Jenkins 1987), advertising (MittaI1999), or word of mouth
(Bansal and Voyer 2000). Importantly, service providers
must recognize and manage these expectations if they are
to attract and satisfy customers with the services they offer
and how they offer them.
Although the prevailing thought in the marketing lit-
erature has been to view expectations as antecedent to
attitudes, it must be noted that not all scholars agree with
that ordering. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) proposed in their
composite model of attitude behavior relation that attitudes
toward specific targets will influence an individual's antici-
pated outcomes from engaging in certain behaviors, which,
in turn, will influence the individual's decision to engage
in that behavior. Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Yi (1992) wrote
about an appraisal process prior to a behavior that consisted
of instrumental beliefs or assessments of the likelihood that
the behavior will result in the attainment of an end. Regard-
less of the ordering of attitudes and expectations, there is
little doubt that expectations or anticipated outcomes can
playa significant role in a consumer's decision to engage
in a given behavior. In addition, attitudes can playa role in
what the expected outcomes may be. Because this research
includes attitudes toward specific targets and more general-
ized attitudes, it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 2: Consumer attitudes toward specific targets
will be positively related to anticipated outcomes from
the service encounter.
Hypothesis 3: Consumer-generalized attitudes toward the
service provider and generalized attitudes toward SSTs
will be positively related to anticipated outcomes from
the service encounter.
 Fal/2007 285

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 So what are the possible outcomes that can be antici-
pated by switching to using an SST? Previous research has
identified at least three relevant outcomes-utility, social
acceptance, and enjoyment-which are discussed next.
Utility
Utility relates to the potential rewards or punishments that
an individual may expect from engaging in a given behavior.
As discussed above, service providers have many reasons
for introducing SSTs into the service encounter, one of
them being that SSTscan make the encounter easier or
better in some way for the consumer. There have been
several stud- ies supporting the importance of utility in
the consumer decision of whether or not to adopt a
technology. Recent research on adoption of technology-
based interfaces has provided evidence that time savings
(Alreck and Settle 2002; Karjaluoto, Mattila, and Pento
2002; Morganosky and Cude
2000), convenience (Iih and Lee 2003; Karjaluoto, Mattila,
and Pento 2002; Morganosky and Cude 2000; Sarel and
Marmorstein 2003), money savings (Howcroft, Hamilton,
and Hewer 2002; Karjaluoto, Mattila, and Pento 2002),
access (Howcroft, Hamilton, and Hewer 2002; Sarel and
Marmorstein 2003), and increased consumer control (Sarel
and Marmorstein 2003) are of particular importance to the
consumer adoption of SSTs. Clearly, these components of
overall utility of SSTsdeserve further investigation and are
included in this study.
Social Acceptance
Social acceptance relates to the approval or disapproval of
others when the consumer decides to adopt and use products
and services. The idea that people will purchase goods or
services primarily to make a favorable impression on other
people has been documented in many different contexts. For
example, Steenkamp and Gielens (2003) found that social
influences can have a pronounced negative effect on the
chances of new product trial as products are perceived as
more novel. Trocchia and Janda (2002) show that consumers
may cease to use a product because usage may not portray
them to others in the fashion desired.
More specific to the context of technology usage, Yoh et
al. (2003) showed that people who had more social support
for Internet shopping had greater intentions to purchase on-
line. Howcroft, Hamilton, and Hewer (2002) found that an
important factor in consumer adoption of an SST in bank-
ing was the recommendation of a friend or family member.
Flanagin (2000) showed that peer pressure was a signifi-
cant factor in organization Web site adoption. Karahanna,
This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Straub, and Chervany (1999) showed that reference groups
can be important to the adoption of information technol-
ogy. While not every consumer will be concerned about the
social pressures relating to SSTs, there is enough evidence
supporting the salience of the construct to warrant inclu-
sion of social acceptance in this research.
Enjoyment
The third anticipated outcome included in this research is
enjoyment. There is a growing body of literature on enjoy-
ment but little agreement as to its place in SST adoption.
Dabholkar (1996) showed that enjoyment was a significant
factor influencing expectations of service quality. Eighmey
and McCord (1998) identified enjoyment as a key construct
in consumer patronage of Web sites. Wolfinbarger and Gilly
(2001) provided qualitative evidence that fun was an impor-
tant and desired outcome when choosing to use technology
to shop. Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002) demonstrated that
fun can be considered as an antecedent to attitudes toward
an SST. Koufaris (2002) found enjoyment to be an impor-
tant direct antecedent to intentions to return to an online
retailer. Although research has shown that people will use
technologies because they are more pleasurable, fun, or
entertaining than more traditional ways of doing things,
more work is needed to clarify its place in understanding
SST adoption. For the purposes of this study, the notion
of fun was considered part of the anticipated outcome of
using the technology and is included along with the other
expected outcomes discussed above.
Intentions to Change Behavior
The introduction of SSTs into the service encounter pres-
ents some interesting reactions from possible users. Meuter
et al. (2000) described incidents where consumers used
SSTs in order to avoid contact with employees. Dabholkar
(1996) discussed the opposite dynamic where people may
avoid technology due to their preference to interact with
people. Although it is true that some new customers may be
attracted to the firm because of its technology (Kauffman
and Lally 1994; Meuter and Bitner 1998), the introduction
of SSTs into the service encounter will require existing
customers to change the manner in which they conduct
their business and they must be persuaded that the change
is worth the investment in time and energy. Curran, Meu-
ter, and Surprenant (2003) found that there was a negative
relationship between attitudes toward frontline employees
and intentions to use certain SSTs. Essentially, the more
customers liked the service they were being provided, the
286 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
less likely they were to change to a technology-based alter-
native. This reluctance to transact business in an alternative
fashion means that firms must address intentions to change
behavior in their plans to promote the technology to their
existing customers. Service providers must also be aware
that there is a portion of their customer base who will be
reluctant to adopt any SST because of fear or anxiety that
they feel toward using technology (Hagen 1999; Meuter
et al. 2003). In addition, perceptions of the innovation
characteristics such as relative advantage or complexity
may limit the number of customers who ultimately adopt
an SST (Rogers 1995).
A primary focus of this research is the notion that adop-
tion of an SSTwill necessitate a change in behavior and that
change may be influenced by the factors discussed earlier.
Therefore, it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4: Consumer attitudes toward specific tar-
gets will be negatively related to intentions to change
behaviors.
Hypothesis 5: Consumer-generalized attitudes toward
the service provider and generalized attitudes toward
SSTs will be positively related to intentions to
change behaviors.
Hypothesis 6: Anticipated outcomes will be positively
related to intentions to change behaviors.
SST INTENTION TO CHANGE
BEHAVIOR MODEL
In order to gain an understanding of the factors at play when
consumers decide whether or not to change from an inter-
personal method of interacting with service providers, a
model was developed based on the literature discussed in the
previous sections (see Figure 1). In this model, it is proposed
that attitudes toward specific targets are related to more
generalized attitudes, expectations (anticipated outcomes)
about using new SSTs, and intention to change behavior
and use the SST.The model also proposes that generalized
attitudes are related to expectations (anticipated outcomes)
about using new SSTsand intention to change behavior and
use the SST. Finally, the model proposes that expectations
(anticipated outcomes) about using new SSTsare related to
intention to change behavior and use the SST.
RESEARCH METHOD
Using the general relationships among the constructs dis-
cussed in the previous section and outlined in Figure 1,
the SST Intention to Change Behavior Model is tested in
This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
a banking context. Figure 2 incorporates context-specific
constructs that are relevant in the banking industry. There
are attitudes toward four distinct, specific targets and
those targets are the touchpoints at which customers can
conduct their banking business. These four attitudes are
toward staff, ATMs, bank by phone, and online banking.
The two more generalized attitudes are toward the service
provider (the bank) and toward SSTsin general. In addition
to the attitudes, there are three anticipated outcomes of
utility, social acceptance, and enjoyment. Utility and social
acceptance were discussed by Eagly and Chaiken (1993) in
their composite model of attitude behavior relation, and
Dabholkar (1996) identified enjoyment as a behavioral
influence in technology adoption.
The primary objectives for this study are to test the SST
Intention to Change Behavior Model and the hypothesized
relationships. In order to capture the determinants of
switching from one service delivery method to another,
a survey approach was utilized targeting customers of
the banking industry. The banking industry was selected
because of its history of technology usage and its usage
of multiple SSTs.This context allows the SST Intention to
Change Behavior Model to be tested across three banking
technologies-ATMs, bank by phone, and online banking.
The banking industry is also appealing because banking
services are widely used on a regular basis.
Construct Measurement
The ordering of questions was done using a funneling
technique in which the broadest questions were asked first
and more specific questions followed. The independent vari-
ables in this study are consumer attitudes toward specific
targets, or the direct interface they encounter during service
delivery. These attitudes are either interpersonal (attitude
toward bank staff) or technology based (attitudes toward
ATMs, the bank-by-phone system, or the online banking
system). The dependent constructs in this study are the
two higher-order attitudes (attitude toward the service
firm and attitude toward SSTs), the anticipated outcomes
(utility, social acceptance, and enjoyment), and behavioral
intentions to change behavior and use the SSTs.All survey
items are listed in Table 1.
To measure attitudes, wording of existing scales was
modified slightly to fit the banking context. Seven-point
bipolar semantic differential scales with endpoints of
good/bad, like/dislike, and pleasant/unpleasant were used
for all of the attitude measures (Allen, Machleit, and Kleine
1992; Barki and Hartwick 1994; Dabholkar 1996; Harrison,
Mykytyn, and Riemenschneider 1997; MacKenzie and Lutz
 Fall2007 287

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figure 1
SST Intention to Change BehaviorModel

Attitudes
l
Intention
Toward Generalized Anticipated
to Cbange
Specific Attitudes ----.~ Outcomes
Bebavior
Targets

t
Figure 2
SST Intention to Change Behavior Model (Applied to Banking Context)

H2l H4l
Attitudes
Toward
Specific Anticipated
Targets Generalized Outcomes
Intention
HI Attitudes H3 H6
• Staff
~ • Utility
to
Cbange
• ATMs lit
• Bank • Enjoyment
lit
Bebavior
• Bank by
• SSTs • Social
Phone Acceptance
• Online
Banking

H5 t
1989; Taylor and Todd 1995). These scales were used to assess In order to minimize any potential for common method
attitudes toward each of the four service delivery options bias, several procedural steps were taken in the organization
(staff, ATM, bank by phone, and online banking). They were of the survey instrument (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The survey
also used to assess generalized attitudes toward the bank's instrument was pretested prior to execution to identify
services and about SSTs. and correct any ambiguity or problematic wording. The
Measures for anticipated outcomes needed to be devel- measures for the criterion constructs were separated from
oped for this study because the notion of these anticipated the predictor measures by a series of questions unrelated
outcomes has not been subject to much research to date. A to either. Finally, the sampling was done from a list of
series of potential scale items was generated based on the randomly generated telephone numbers and anonymity
theoretical constructs being considered for this research and was guaranteed.
then presented to a convenience sample of banking custom-
ers. A factor analysis of the results of this preliminary data
Sample
collection and reliability analysis of the proposed scales
showed that they performed well enough to be used. The The survey was administered by phone to a random sample
questions included in these scales can be found in Table 1. of 2,326 people living in a three-state area in the northeast
Intention to change banking behavior was measured using United States, yielding 628 completed surveys and a re-
a seven-point semantic differential scale with "extremely sponse rate of 27 percent. Respondents ranged in age from
likely" and II extremely unlikely" as endpoints. Subjects were 18 to 86. Table 2 summarizes other descriptive information
asked how likely they were to change the way in which they about the respondents.
do their banking in the next six months, how likely they Although 19.9 percent have never used an ATM, many
were to seek information about another way of banking in more customers have never used the bank-by-phone op-
the next six months, and how likely they were to try another tion (73.3 percent) or the online banking alternative (86.7
way of banking in the next six months. percent). Twenty-four percent of the respondents claim to

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.162 on Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:37:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
288 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Table 1
Measurement Model Results

Internal Consistency

Average
Standardized Composite Coefficient Variance
Construct and Scale Items Loadings Reliability Alpha Extracted

Attitude Toward Bank 0.931 0.931 0.820

How good or bad do you feel about using your bank? 0.872
How pleasant or unpleasant is it to deal with your bank? 0.928
How much do you like or dislike your bank? 0.915
Attitude Toward Self-Service Technologies 0.975 0.976 0.930
How good or bad do you feel about using automated banking
systems? 0.944
How pleasant or unpleasant is it to deal with automated
banking systems? 0.978
How much do you like or dislike automated banking systems? 0.971
Attitude Toward Staff 0.970 0.970 0.915
How good or bad do you feel about dealing with bank
employees? 0.961
How pleasant or unpleasant is it to deal with bank employees? 0.962
How much do you like or dislike dealing with your bank's
employees? 0.947
Attitude Toward ATMs* 0.965 0.965 0.902
How good or bad do you feel about using ATMs? 0.940
How pleasant or unpleasant is it to use an ATM? 0.964
How much do you like or dislike using ATMs? 0.945
Attitude Toward Bank by Phone* 0.958 0.955 0.885
How good or bad do you feel about using bank by phone? 0.973
How pleasant or unpleasant is it to use bank by phone? 0.978
How much do you like or dislike using bank by phone? 0.868
Attitude Toward Online Banking* 0.976 0.976 0.932
How good or bad do you feel about using online banking? 0.956
How pleasant or unpleasant is it to use online banking? 0.963
How much do you like or dislike using online banking? 0.978
Enjoym nt (I will use a new way of banking if ... ) 0.787 0.786 0.553
it seems to be more fun. 0.674
it is more entertaining than myoid way. 0.801
it is more enjoyable than what I am using. 0.751
Utility (I will use a new way of banking if ... ) 0.819 0.818 0.602
it is chea per tha n what I use now. 0.726
it is faster than what I currently use. 0.824
it is more convenient than what 1use now. 0.775
Social Acceptance (I will use a new way of banking if ... ) 0.777 0.763 0.542
my friends or family think that 1should. 0.621
it will make other people think better of me. 0.828
it makes me look good to others. 0.745
Intentions to Change (In the next six months ... ) 0.907 0.906 0.767
how likely are you to change the way that you do your banking? 0.802
how likely are you to look for information on using different
ways of doing your banking? 0.903
how likely are you to try another way of doing your banking? 0.918
* Respondents who had not used this SST were asked to think about what it would be like to use the SST.
Fa1l2007 289
use bank employees to conduct all of their banking business
and half of the respondents go to bank employees to con-
duct their business at least 75 percent of the time. Only 3.5
percent of respondents claim to never deal with employees.
Of the few who have used bank by phone (26.7 percent),
half of them use it for 10 percent or fewer of their banking
transactions. Likewise, of those who have used online bank-
ing (13.3 percent), half of them use online banking for 10
percent or fewer of their banking transactions. Although
these usage rates were consistent with typical usage at the
time of data collection, it is important to note that usage
of online banking has continued to grow since the time
this data was collected. Some estimates are that 44 percent
of all Internet users now utilize online banking (Fox and
Beier 2006).
RESULTS
Measurement Assessment
As discussed earlier and shown in Figure 2, 10 constructs
have been included in this research and preliminary analysis
was needed to ensure that all are adequately measured. The
constructs include six attitudes, three anticipated outcomes,
and one behavioral intention. An unrotated factor analy-
sis of the 30 measures (three measures for each of the 10
constructs) indicated some possible correlation among the
attitude factors, which was not unexpected. However, the
scree plot provided evidence of the 10 expected factors. The
unrotated solution showed that the first factor accounted
for only 23.7 percent of the variance, which is an indica-
tion that common method bias is not present in this data
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). The 10 factors together accounted
for 86.2 percent of the variance in the data. A second, or-
thogonally rotated factor analysis clearly identified the 10
factors that were expected and the results of this analysis
can be seen in Table 3. Eighty-six percent of the total vari-
ance was explained by the 10 factors. More information
about these factors was obtained from the measurement
model that was tested prior to examining the structural
model relationships.
The measurement model contained the 10 constructs
described above, each measured by the three-item scales,
modeled as 10 correlated, first-order factors. The correla-
tion model fit well with a chi-square value 690.42 and 360
degrees of freedom (df) (X2/df ratio of 1.92), a compara-
tive fit index (CFI) of 0.982, and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA)at 0.038. The correlations among
the constructs are shown in Table 4. The average variance
extracted for each construct was calculated using the stan-
Table 2
Descriptive Information on Survey Respondents
Percentage
Female 56.0
Male 44.0
Under 35 years old 34.0
35 to 50 years old 33.0
Over 50 yea rs old 33.0
High School Diploma or Less 28.0
Some College But No Bachelor's Degree 36.0
Bachelors Degree or More 36.0
Have Used an ATM 80.1
Have Never Used an ATM 19.9
Have Used Bank by Phone 26.7
Have Never Used Bank by Phone 73.3
Have Used Online Banking 13.3
Have Never Used Online Banking 86.7
dardized factor loadings and indicator measurement errors
(Hair et al. 1998) and ranged from a low of 0.542 to a high
of 0.932 for the 10 constructs (see Table 1). The values for
the average variance extracted all exceed the 0.5 threshold
accepted as an indication of the validity of a construct's
measure (Fornell and Larcker 1981). A comparison of the
squared correlations between each of the constructs to the
average variance extracted estimates for those constructs
will provide evidence of discriminant validity between the
constructs. If the average variance extracted for each con-
struct is greater than the square of the correlation between
the constructs, then discriminant validity is demonstrated
(Fornell and Larcker 1981). In each case, this holds true, as
the only two instances where squared correlations exceeded
0.50 were between attitude toward ATMs and attitude
toward SSTs (squared correlation = 0.58; lowest average
variance extracted = 0.90 for attitude toward ATMs) and
between social acceptance and enjoyment (squared cor-
relation = 0.52; lowest average variance extracted = 0.54 for
social acceptance). A second test for discriminant validity,
the chi-square difference test, confirmed significance for 41
of the 44 pairings of constructs. Results from the measure-
ment model and the values for coefficient alpha for each
construct can be found in Table 1. The measurement model
demonstrated that the survey items included in this research
adequately measure the constructs and that the constructs
are sufficiently distinct from one another.
In order to detect the presence of any common method
bias, another structural model was created in which all of
the factors included in this analysis were used as first-order
measures of a new second-order factor that would capture
any common method bias (Spreitzer 1996). The fit numbers
for this model were below accepted norms with a CFI of
290 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Table 3
Factor Analysis Results

Factor Loadings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ATM3 0.896 0.366

ATM2 0.886 0.398
ATM1 0.865 0.419
SST2 0.405 0.894
SST3 0.401 0.893
SST1 0.384 0.891
OlB3 0.931
OlB2 0.930
OlB1 0.921
Staff2 0.950
Staff 1 0.949
Staff3 0.948
BBP2 0.926
BBP3 0.919
BBP1 0.900
Bank3 0.927
Bank1 0.916
Bank2 0.913
Change3 0.914
Change2 0.913
Change1 0.881
Utility1 0.846
Utility2 0.817
Utility3 0.800
Social1 0.836
Social2 0.783
Social3 0.756 0.302
Enjoy1 0.346 0.779
Enjoy2 0.689
Enjoy3 0.485 0.683

Note: Only factor loadings greater than 0.30 shown.

Table 4
Correlations Between Constructs

Bank by Online
Staff ATM Phone Banking Bank SST Utility Enjoy Social Change

Staff 1.00
ATM -0.06 1.00
Bank by Phone 0.08* 0.32*** 1.00
Online Banking -0.01 0.33*** 0.47*** 1.00
Bank 0.40*** 0.05 0.01 0.02 1.00
SST -0.05 0.76*** 0.35*** 0.36*** 0.06 1.00
Utility -0.09** 0.21*** 0.12** 0.22*** -0.06 0.24*** 1.00
Enjoy -0.06 0.13** 0.09 0.16*** -0.02 0.15** 0.22*** 1.00
Social 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.14** 0.Q1 0.12** 0.60*** 0.72*** 1.00
Change -0.12** 0.12** 0.13** 0.15*** -0.05 0.15*** 0.25*** 0.31 *** 0.20*** 1.00

* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.

 Fa1l2007 291

Table 5
Structural Model Summary Comparisons

Model 2
Model 1 Attitude-Only Model 3
Base Model Model Full Model

Chi-Square 1,866.91 1,226.25 1,099.52

Degrees of Freedom 395 385 364
Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom 4.726 3.185 3.02
RMSEA 0.077 0.059 0.057
CFI 0.921 0.955 0.961
GFI 0.848 0.887 0.902
TLI 0.914 0.949 0.953
AIC 2,006.911 1,386.253 1,301.518
CAlC 2,387.889 1,821.656 1,851.215
ECVI 3.201 2.211 2.076
R2-lntention to Change (percent) 4.5 4.9 10.3
R2-Attitude Toward Bank Service (percent) N/A 17.0 17.0
R2-Attitude Toward SSTs(percent) N/A 60.3 60.3
R2-Utility (percent) N/A N/A 9.2
R2-Enjoyment (percent) N/A N/A 4.5
R2-Social Acceptance (percent) N/A N/A 1.4
Notes: RMSEA= root mean square error of approximation, CFI = comparative fit index, GFI = goodness-of-fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, AlC =
Akaike information criterion, CAlC = consistent AlC, ECVI = expected cross-validation index.
0.945 (Hu and Bentler 1999) and an adjusted goodness-of-
fit index (AGFI) of 0.845 (Hair et al. 1998). The lack of fit
for this model indicates that common method bias should
not be problematic.
Analyzing the SST Intention to
Change Behavior Model
The hypotheses discussed above are assessed using a series
of nested structural models. Nested models allow us to
compare models and determine the best fit for the data.
This approach gives us the confidence that the model not
only fits but that it is the best of the three options tested.
These models link all of the unique attitudes and antici-
pated outcome constructs to intention to change banking
behaviors. Each of the models contains six attitude con-
structs, three constructs related to anticipated outcomes
(enjoyment, utility, social acceptance), and one construct
for intention to change behavior. All of these constructs
have three-item scales measuring each construct. This
brings the total number of observed variables to 30 and
the number of data points to 465. The largest number of
parameters to be estimated in any of the models is 101,
which means that all three models will have a positive
number of degrees of freedom. All of the constructs have
a minimum of three measures and all three models are
recursive in nature so model identification is not prob-
lematic (Hair et al. 1998). The sample size included in this
study was 628, which allows an average of more than six
respondents per parameter being estimated for each of the
maximum of 101 parameters in the most complex model,
which indicates that the sample size is appropriate (Hair
et al. 1998). A comparison of the model fit results and the
variance explained for the constructs included in each of
the models can be found in Table 5.
The first model tested includes only direct paths from the
four attitudes toward specific target constructs (staff, ATMs,
bank by phone, online banking) to the ultimate dependent
construct-intention to change behavior. This model does
not include any paths to or from the higher-order attitude
constructs (attitude toward the bank and attitude toward
SSTs) or the anticipated outcomes constructs. The signifi-
cant results from this model are shown in Figure 3. The
chi-square value for this model is 1,866.91 and the degrees
of freedom are 395, resulting in a chi-square/df ratio of
4.72, which is within the range of 2 to 5 established for ac-
ceptability (Marsh and Hocevar 1985). The RMSEAis 0.077,
which is below the 0.8 maximum for acceptability (Browne
and Cudeck 1993). The CFI for this model is 0.92, which
is below the current standard of 0.95 for acceptability (Hu
and Bentler 1999). The proportion of the variance explained
(R2) for the dependent variable is only 4.5 percent, which
leaves a great deal of variation to be explained.
The significant results from the second model are shown
in Figure 4. This model differs from the first model in that
the higher-order attitude constructs are included by adding
292 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Figure 3
Base Model

-0.12*

,
,
,
,
,
,
,,
,
,

0.47*** ~
, I

,
,
0.33***\

Notes: '1}/df = 4.72; RMSEA = 0.077; CFI = 0.92. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001 (only significant correlations among independent
constructs shown).
paths from each of the specific target attitude constructs
(staff, ATMs,bank by phone, online banking) to both of the
generalized attitude constructs (attitude toward the bank
and attitude toward SSTs) and from the two generalized
attitude constructs (attitude toward the bank and attitude
toward SSTs)to the intention to change behavior construct.
Again, there are no paths either to or from the anticipated
outcome constructs. For this model, the chi-square value is
1,226.25 and the degrees of freedom are 385, resulting in
a very respectable chi-square/df ratio of 3.185 (Marsh and
Hocevar 1985). It must be noted that these results indicate
a significant improvement in fit over the first model (chi-
squarediff = 10, P < 0.001). The
640.66, dfdiff =
RMSEAvalue
is 0.059, which is better than the first model tested (Browne
 Fa1l2007 293

Figure 4
Attitude-Only Model

-0.12*

\ 0.71***
\
\
\

,
\
\

,
\
\

, \

,
\
\

,
\
\

, \
\

, \

,
\
\
\

,
,
,
,
0.09n5
",,
,
,
0.36***\

Notes:X2/df = 3.185; RMSEA= 0.059; CFI = 0.955. * P < 0.05; * * P < 0.01; * * * p < 0.001 (only significant correlations among indepen-
dent constructs shown) (all paths from independent constructs to higher-order attitudes tested-only significant results shown).
and Cudeck 1993). The CFI for this model is 0.955, which
is acceptable and also represents an improvement over the
first model (Hu and Bentler 1999). The proportion of the
variance explained (R2) for the dependent variable is 4.9
percent, which is indicative of a marginal improvement in
the explanatory power of this model. The proportion of
the variance explained (R2) for the mediating higher-order
attitude constructs was 60.3 percent for attitude toward
SSTs and 17 percent for attitude toward the bank.
The final model incorporates the anticipated outcome
constructs into the second model discussed above. Paths were
included from each of the six attitude constructs to each of
the anticipated outcomes and from each of the anticipated
outcomes to the Intention to Change Behavior construct.
294 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

Figure 5
Full Model: SST Intention to Change Behavior Model
 0.09* 0.10*

I
I
I
i i
i I
I I
, \
\
I I
, \

, \
i
I
, \ I 0.14*
, ! 0.32*" '\ I _._.4._._ .•
,
I

,
I
\ 1./ i
, \ i I
\: i
I
I
, ~ .
,, 0.09* .,.. \ .,.I I

, .... I
..
I \
\
I
, <.,.,.. i \ I
,
.:
\

, ./
. '- I \
, \

, i 0.47*** i i
,
, /./
: I
/i
/./
//
-r09*
- O.lS*

............
-- .......

-.-.-~
--'-.. . ...........

0.12*

Notes: X2/df = 3.19; RMSEA= 0.06; CFI = 0.961. * P < 0.05; * * P < 0.01; * * * p < 0.001 (only significant correlations among
independent constructs shown) (all paths tested-only significant results shown).

The significant results are shown in Figure 5. The results for CFI of 0.961 (Hu and Bentler 1999). The proportion of the
this model show the chi-square value to be 1099.52 and the variance explained (R2) for the Intention to Change Behavior
degrees of freedom are 364, resulting in a good chi-square/df construct is 10.3 percent, more than double the results of
ratio of 3.02 (Marsh and Hocevar 1985). These results indi- the previous model, and the proportion of the variance ex-
cate a significant improvement in fit over the second model plained (R2) for the higher-order attitudes remains the same
(chi-square, = 126.73, df = 21, P < 0.001). The RMSEA as the other models at 60.3 percent for attitude toward SSTs
dif

value of 0.057 is solid (Browne and Cudeck 1993) as is the and 17 percent for attitude toward the bank. The variance
Fall2007 295
explained for the anticipated outcomes was 9.2 percent of
the utility construct, 4.5 percent of the enjoyment construct,
and 1.4 percent of the social acceptance construct.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The model shown in Figure 5 is clearly the best explanation
of this data. The fit numbers are superior to both of the
other models and the explanatory power is stronger (see
Table 5). These results show us that, at least in the case where
the intention is to change an existing behavior, attitudes
alone do not offer enough explanatory value as a driving
force for intentions. The relationship between attitudes
and intentions has a long history in marketing and other
literature, but this model demonstrates that, in certain
circumstances, marketers need to include other factors.
The inclusion of anticipated outcomes in the final model
offers a good way to expand upon the attitude-intention
relationship to gain a more complete understanding of the
intention to change phenomenon. This model clearly shows
that attitudes are not the only predictor for behavioral in-
tentions and that predicting intentions can be enhanced by
including constructs such as anticipated outcomes.
Having established that the model presented in Figure 5
offers the best explanation of the relationships among the
constructs included in this research, this model provides
evidence supporting five of the six proposed hypotheses. All
parameter estimates and significance values can be seen on
the diagram shown in Figure 5. The results in Figure 5 show
that HI is supported (consumer attitudes toward specific
targets will be positively related to more global attitudes
toward the service provider and attitudes toward SSTs).
An examination of the paths shows that attitude toward
staff and attitude toward ATMs are significant influences
on attitude toward the bank. Similarly, attitude toward
ATMs,attitude toward bank by phone, and attitude toward
online banking were all found to be positively related to
the higher-order attitude toward SSTs. Partial support was
found for H2 (consumer attitudes toward specific targets
will be positively related to anticipated outcomes from
the service encounter). The paths from attitude toward
online banking to each of the three anticipated outcome
constructs were found to be Significant. This offers partial
support because none of the other paths from attitudes
toward specific targets to any of the anticipated outcomes
were found to be significant.
In the case of H4 (consumer attitudes toward specific
targets will be negatively related to intentions to change be-
haviors), partial support was found. The path from attitude
toward the staff to intention to change behavior was found
to be significant and negative in direction. None of the other
paths from attitudes toward specific targets to intentions to
change behavior were significant. H3 (consumer-generalized
attitudes toward the service provider and attitudes toward
SSTswill be positively related to anticipated outcomes from
the service encounter) was partially supported, as evidenced
by the significant paths from attitude toward SSTsto util-
ity and social acceptance. None of the other paths between
the higher-order attitudes and anticipated outcomes were
significant. The only hypothesis where no support was
found was H5, asserting that higher-order attitudes will
be positively related to intentions to change behaviors.
The results shown in Figure 5 indicate that the paths from
attitude toward the bank and attitude toward SSTs to the
dependent construct of Intention to Change Behavior were
both found to be nonsignificant. H6, anticipated outcomes
will be positively related to intentions to change behaviors,
was also supported by the results of the model shown in
Figure 5. The paths from utility and enjoyment to intention
to change behavior were found to be significant.
It was not surprising that utility, or some relevant im-
provement in the banking experience, would have its appeal
to banking consumers. The relative importance of enjoy-
ment was less expected. In fact, it was found to be the most
significant influence included in this study. While this data
was being collected, some of the subjects expressed surprise
that they were being asked about banking and having fun
at the same time. As incongruous as it might have seemed,
it appears that an important driving force in getting people
to adopt a new way to interact with a service provider is to
make it more enjoyable.
The results from the final model demonstrate that the
role of employees remains critical to the decision to change
behaviors. Previous research has shown that employees
affect intentions to use SSTs, and our results can be inter-
preted Similarly in that when customers are happy with
the employees who serve them, they are less likely to seek
alternative methods in which to conduct their business.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
The results of this study are especially important for man-
agers who are considering the implementation of SSTs in
their service delivery. As customers continue to become
more familiar and comfortable with banking technologies,
it is critical that firms understand how to best manage SSTs.
For example, customer use of online banking continues to
grow rapidly, with some estimates of 44 percent of all In-
ternet users now utilizing online banking services (Fox and
Beier 2006; Sullivan 2005). Furthermore, SSTscan provide
296 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
tremendous cost savings if they are widely used. However,
they can be very costly if not introduced correctly. When
IBM shifted 99 million service phone calls to an online
channel, they saved $2 billion (Burrows 2001). However,
a Forrester Research study found that 41 percent of firms
studied observed no return or savings on their self-service
investment (Zurek et al. 2001). Thus, it is critical to clearly
understand how to best implement, manage, and promote
SSTsfor success.
Introducing SSTs allows customers the luxury of select-
ing between a variety of delivery options, and this research
is designed to help us better understand how consumers
make those choices. As part of any marketing strategy, it is
important to include all factors that might be salient to the
targeted customers. Attitudes have been well established
but we show here that the factors of utility, social accep-
tance, and especially enjoyment are also important in the
decision process.
In banking and many other industries, it is common to
think of the transactions as being a necessary evil; however,
this study shows that making the transaction encounter en-
joyable and fun is a good way to encourage use of different
delivery options. Perhaps SST usage in many cases is low
because it has been treated as a tool instead of a mechanism
to provide service in a meaningful, enjoyable way. To over-
look the possibility that the service encounter will be more
enjoyable would be to miss a seemingly important issue that
could persuade at least some consumers to utilize an SST.
In addition, our study provides some insight into which
of the three anticipated outcomes appears to be most influ-
ential. From our results in the banking context, it is clear
that enjoyment seems to be more influential than either so-
cial acceptance or utility. Although each can be important,
in this context, enjoyment clearly is more critical. Given
the time pressures and stressors to which most consumers
are exposed, it should not be surprising that enjoyment is
an important trait when selecting a transaction option. As
consumers, we expect all methods to be fast, fair, and ac-
curate, so the extra benefit of enjoyment is appealing.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The research being presented here has shown that marketers
must go beyond attitudes to fully understand what it will
take to get customers to use a new service delivery option.
Because firms are increasingly concerned about migrating
customers toward technological approaches, it is imperative
we know more about this adoption decision. Although the
models presented here are useful, they did not explain more
than 10 percent of the variation in the construct of Inten-
tion to Change Behavior. There appear to be other factors
at work that should be explored in future research to have
a more complete understanding of this construct.
More research is needed regarding the relationships
among attitudes toward specific targets and intentions to
adopt SSTs. The fact that the paths between the attitudes
toward the three technologies examined in this research
were not found to be significant shows that more research
is needed to understand how using one technology affects
the adoption of another. Although the banking context pro-
vided a useful and interesting framework for this research,
it would be important to test the relationships found here
in other contexts to determine if they apply more gener-
ally. Finally, it would be interesting to explore if feelings of
enjoyment with a service delivery method are long-lasting
or if they are temporary and wear off after several uses of a
new delivery method. This would indicate that SSTsneed to
be continually enhanced to retain those feelings of enjoy-
ment. One dynamic to consider in future research relating
to enjoyment is the interplay between utility and enjoyment.
Future research might provide some insight as to the relative
importance of these factors over time. For example, utility
might take on a more significant role as enjoyment erodes.
These are important issues that will provide further insight
into customer interactions, adoption, and use of SSTs.
SSTsare an exciting opportunity for many firms and we
expect to see many SST advancements over the next few
years. This research and other efforts to better understand
customer interactions with SSTsshould help firm managers
better utilize these powerful service delivery tools.
REFERENCES
Adams, Dennis A., R. Ryan Nelson, and Peter A. Todd (1992),
"Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information
Technology: A Replication," MIS Quarterly, 16 (2), 227-247.
Allen, Chris T., Karen A. Machleit, and Susan S. Kleine (1992),
"A Comparison of Attitudes and Emotions as Predictors of
Behavior at Diverse Levels of Behavioral Experience,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March), 493-504.
Alreck, Pamela A., and Robert B. Settle (2002), "The Hurried
Consumer: Time-Saving Perceptions of Internet and Catalog
Shopping," Journal of Database Management, 10 (1),25-35.
Andreassen, Tor Wallin (20ot), "From Disgust to Delight: Do
Customers Hold a Grudge?" Journal of Service Research, 4
(1),39-49.
Bagozzi, Richard P., Hans Baumgartner, and Youjae Yi (1992),
"Appraisal Processes in the Enactment of Intentions to Use
Coupons," Psychology & Marketing, 9 (6), 469-486.
Bansal, Harvir S., and Peter A. Voyer (2000), "Word-of-Mouth
Processes Within a Services Purchase Decision Context,"
Journal of Service Research, 3 (2), 166-177.
Fa1l2007 297
Barki, Henri, and John Hartwick (1994), "Measuring User Participa-
tion, User Involvement, and User Attitude," MIS Ouarteriy,
18 (March), 59-82.
Bitner, Mary jo (1992), "Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical
Surroundings on Customers and Employees," Journal of
Marketing, 56 (April), 57-71.
-- (1995), "Building Service Relationships: It's All About
Promises," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23
(4), 246-251.
Brown, Steven P.,and Douglas M. Stayman (1992), "Antecedent and
Consequences of Attitude Toward the Ad: A Meta-Analysis,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (Iune), 34-51.
Browne, Michael W., and Robert Cudeck (1993), "Alternative Ways
of Assessing Model Fit," Testing Structural Equation
Models, Kenneth A. Bollen and J. Scott Long, eds.,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 136-162.
Burrows, Peter (2001), "The Era of Efficiency," BusinessWeek (lune
18),94-98.
Cadotte, Ernest R., Robert B. Woodruff, and Roger L. Jenkins
(1987), "Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer
Satisfac- tion," Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August),
305-314.
Curran, James M., Matthew L. Meuter, and Carol F. Surprenant
(2003), "Intentions to Use Self-Service Technologies: A Con-
fluence of Multiple Attitudes," Journal of Service Research,
5 (3), 209-224.
Dabholkar, Pratibha 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, 13 (1), 29-51.
--, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2002), "An Attitudinal Model of
Technology-Based Self-Service: Moderating Effects of Con-
sumer Traits and Situational Factors," Journal of Academy
of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 184-201.
Davis, Fred D. (1989), "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of
Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology," MIS
Ouartetiv. 13 (September), 319-339.
--, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw (1989), "User Ac-
ceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two
Theoretical Models," Management Science, 35 (August),
982-1003.
Eagly, Alice A., and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of
At- titudes, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Eighmey, John, and Lola McCord (1998), "Adding Value in the In-
formation Age: Uses and Gratifications of Sites on the World
Wide Web," Journal of Business Research, 41 (3), 187-194.
Flanagin, Andrew J. (2000), "Social Pressures on Organizational
Website Adoption," Human Communication Research, 26
(4),618-646.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measure-
ment Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February),
39-50.
Fox, Susannah, and Jean Beier (2006), "Surfing to the Bank," Pew
Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC, June
14 (available at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/31/surfing-to-
the-bank).
Hagen, Philip T. (1999), Mayo Clinic Guide to Self-Care, Rochester,
MN: Mayo Clinic.
Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and
William C. Black (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, John (2006), "ABA Issue Summary: ATM Fact Sheet,"
American Bankers Association, Washington, DC (available
at www.aba.com/NR/ rdonlyres/ 80468433-4225-11 D4-AAE6-
00508B95258D/41737 /2ATMFacts
l.pdf).
Harrison, DavidA., Peter P.Mykytyn,Jr., and Cynthia K. Riemensch-
neider (1997), "Executive Decisions About Adoption of Infor-
mation Technology in Small Business: Theory and Empirical
Tests," Information Systems Research, 8 (lune), 171-195.
Howcroft, Barry, Robert Hamilton, and Paul Hewer (2002), "Con-
sumer Attitude and the Usage and Adoption of Home-Based
Banking in the United Kingdom," International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 20 (2-3), 111-121.
Hu, Li-Tze, and Peter M. Bentler (1999), "Cutoff Criteria for Fit
Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional
Criteria Versus New Alternatives," Structural Equation Mod-
eling, 6 (1), 1-55.
Jih, Wen-Jang Kenny, and Su-Fang Lee (2003), "An Exploratory
Analysis of Relationships Between Cellular Phones Users'
Shopping Motivators and Lifestyle Indicators," Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 43 (Winter), 65-73.
Karahanna, Elena, Detmar W. Straub, and Norman Chervany
(1999), "Information Technology Adoption Across Time:
A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-
Adoption Beliefs," MIS Ouarterly, 23 (2), 183-213.
Karjaluoto, Heikki, Minna Mattila, and Tapio Pento (2002), "Elec-
tronic Banking in Finland: Consumer Beliefs and Reactions
to a New Channel of Delivery," Journal of Financial Services
Marketing, 6 (4), 346-361.
Kauffman, Robert J., and Laura Lally (1994), "A Value Platform
Analysis Perspective on Customer Access Information
Technology," Decision Sciences, 25 (September-December),
767-794.
Kinney, Lance, and Stephen R. McDaniel (1996), "Strategic Implica-
tions of Attitude Toward the Ad in Leveraging Event
Sponsor- ships," Journal of Sport Management, 10 (3), 250-
261.
Kirca, Ahmet H., Satish Jayachandran, and William O. Bearden
(2005), "Market Orientation: A Meta-Analytic Review and
Assessment of Its Antecedents and Impact on Performance,"
Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 24-41.
Koufaris, Marios (2002), "Applying the Technology Acceptance
Model and Flow Theory to Online Consumer Behavior,"
Information Systems Research, 13 (2), 205-223.
MacKenzie, Scott B., and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical
Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude To-
ward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context," Journal
of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.
--, --, and George E. Belch (1986), "The Role of Attitude
Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness:
A Test of Competing Explanations," Journal of Marketing
Research, 23 (May), 130-143.
Marsh, Herbert W., and D. Hocevar (1985), "Application of Con-
firmatory Factor Analysis to the Study of Self-Concept: First-
and Higher-Order Factor Models and Their Invariance Across
Groups," Psychological Bulletin, 97 (3), 562-582.
Meuter, Matthew L., and Mary Io Bitner (1998), "Self-Service
Technologies: Extending Service Frameworks and Identifying
Issues for Research," in Marketing Theory and Applications,
vol. 9, Dhruv Grewal and Connie Pechman, eds., Chicago:
American Marketing Association, 12-19.
--, --, Amy L. Ostrom, and Stephen W. Brown (2005),
"Choosing Among Alternative Service Delivery Modes: An
298 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
 Investigation of Customer Trial of Self-Service Technologies,"
Journal of Marketin& 69 (April), 61-83.
--, Amy L. Ostrom, Mary jo Bitner, and Robert I. Roundtree
(2003), "The Influence of Technology Anxiety on Consumer
Use and Experiences with Self-Service Technologies,"
Journal
of Business Research, 56 (11), 899-906.
--, --, Robert I. Roundtree, and Mary Jo Bitner (2000), "Self-
Service Technologies: Understanding Customer Satisfaction
with Technology-Based Service Encounters," Journal of
Mar-
keting, 64 (luly), 50-64.
Mittal, Banwari (1990), "The Relative Roles of Brand Beliefs and
Attitude Toward the Ad as Mediators of Brand Attitude:
A Second Look," Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (May),
209-219.
-- (1999), "The Advertising of Services: Meeting the Challenge
of Intangibility," Journal of Service Research, 2 (1), 98-116.
Morganosky, Michelle A, and Brenda Cude (2000), "Consumer
Response to Online Grocery Shopping," International Journal
of Retail and Distribution, 28 (1), 17-27 .
Oliver, Richard L. (1980), "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents
and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions," Journal of
Marketing Research, 17 (November), 460-469.
Parasuraman, A. (2000), "Technology Readiness Index (TRI):
A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace
New Technologies," Journal of Service Research, 2 (May)
307-320.
--, Leonard L. Berry, and Valarie A Zeithaml (1994), "Reassess-
ment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measur-
ing Service Quality," Journal of Marketing, 58 (Ianuary),
111-124.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and
Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), "Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies," Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
(5), 879-903.
Radas, Sonja, and Steven M. Shugan (1998), "Managing Service
Demand: Shifting and Bundling," Journal of Service
Research,
1 (1), 47-64.
Rogers, Everett M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, New York:
Free Press.
Sarel, Dan, and Howard Marmorstein (2003), "Marketing Online
Banking Services: The Voice of the Customer," Journal of
Financial Services Marketing, 8 (2), 106-118.
Seybold, Patricia B. (2001), The Customer Revolution: How to
Thrive When Customers Are in Control, New York: Crown
Business. Smith, Ellen Reid (2000), e-Loyalty: How to Keep
Customers Coming
Back to Your Website, New York: HarperCollins.
Sparks, Beverly A., Graham L Bradley, and Victor J Callan (1997),
"The Impact of Staff Empowerment and Communication
Style on Customer Evaluation: The Special Case of Service
Failure," Psychology & Marketing, 14 (5), 475-493.
Spreitzer, Gretchen M. (1996), "Social Structural Characteristics
of Psychological Empowerment," Academy of Management
Journal, 39 (2), 483-504.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., and Katrijn Gielens (2003), "Con-
sumer and Market Drivers of the Trial Probability of New
Consumer Packaged Goods," Journal of Consumer
Research,
30 (3), 368-384.
Sullivan, Bob (2005), "Click! Online Banking Usage Soars:
Popularity of Services Jump as Users Look Past Fraud
Fears," MSNBC.com, May 25 (available at www.msnbc.msn
.com/id/6936297/from/ET/).
Taylor, Shirley, and Peter A Todd (1995), "Understanding Infor-
mation Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models,"
Information Systems Research, 6 (Iune), 144-176.
Teas, R. Kenneth (1993), "Expectations, Performance Evaluation
and Consumers' Perceptions of Quality," Journal of Market-
ing, 57 (October), 18-34.
Trocchia, Philip J., and Swinder Janda (2002), IIAn Investigation
of Product Purchase and Subsequent Non-Consumption,"
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19 (3), 188-204.
Walker, Rhett H., Margaret Craig-Lees, Robert Hecker, and Heather
Francis (2002), "Technology-Enabled Service Delivery: An
Investigation of Reason Affecting Customer Adoption and
Rejection," International Journal of Service Industry
Manage-
ment, 13 (1), 91-107.
Wolfinbarger, Mary, and Mary C. Gilly (2001), "Shopping Online
for Freedom, Control, and Fun," California Management
Review, 43 (2), 34-55.
Yoh, Eunah, Mary Lynn Damhorst, Stephen Sapp, and Russ
Laczniak (2003), "Consumer Adoption of the Internet: The
Case of Apparel Shopping," Psychology & Marketing, 20 (12),
1095-1118.
Zeithaml, Valarie A, Leonard L. Berry, and A Parasuraman (1993),
"The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expectations
of Service," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21
(1), 1-12.
Zemke, Ron, and Tom Connellan (2001), E-service: 24 Ways to
Keep Your Customers When the Competition Is Just a Click
Away, New York: AMACOM.
Zurek, Bob, Bob Chatham, Marli Porth, Meredith Child, and Taichi
Nakashima (2001), "Making Self-Service Pay Off," Forrester
Research Report, Cambridge, MA, May.