International Journal of

,i ! R Research in
...... (w Marketing
ELSEVIER Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51

Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service

options: An investigation of alternative models of service quality
Pratibha A. Dabholkar *
University of Tennessee, Department of Marketing and Logistics / Transportation, 307, Stokely Management Center, Knoxville, TN
37996, USA
Received 15 July 1994; accepted 15 June 1995

Abstract

Increasing labor costs and advances in technology are encouraging service firms to consider offering technology-
based self-service options to consumers. Yet, little is known about how consumers would evaluate such options. Two
alternative models of service quality are proposed based on an attribute versus overall affect approach. The attribute
model is based specifically on what consumers would expect from such options. The overall affect model is based on
the consumer's feelings toward the use of technology. A study is conducted to test these models for a new (proposed)
technology-based self-service option, with and without the effect of different waiting times. Implications for firms in
terms of service design and promotion are discussed, and directions for future research are indicated.

Keywords: Consumer evaluation; Service delivery; Technology-based self-service; New technology-based service;
Self-service options; Service quality; Models of service quality; Attribute-based decision model; Affect-based
decision model; Effect of waiting time

I. Introduction Banking, 1986). 1 T h e benefits of self-service de-

High labor costs are causing service firms to
examine delivery options that allow consumers to
p e r f o r m services for themselves (Business Week,
1990). Moreover, advances in technology are
making self-service innovations (e.g., a u t o m a t e d
car rental machines at airports, c o m p u t e r order-
ing in stores) increasingly feasible (World of
livery options are evident in terms of productivity
and cost savings for the firm (Chase, 1978; Love-
lock and Young, 1979; Mills and Moberg, 1982;
Schneider and Bowen, 1985). Yet, little is known
about c o n s u m e r p r e f e r e n c e for such options, par-
ticularly those based on technology. Popular
sources suggest that consumers are willing to
engage in self-service if they perceive it as m o r e

1 A comprehensive discussion on current and potential

* Tel.: (615) 974-1656; fax: (615) 974-1932; e-mail: technology-based self-service options and the implications of
pa146028@utkvml.bitnet. these for service marketers is presented in Dabholkar (1994a).

0167-8116/96/$15.00 © 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 0167-8116(95)00027-5
30 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
convenient, efficient, or enjoyable (The New York
Times, 1989) and that they are becoming increas-
ingly comfortable with technology (Chain Store
Age Executive, 1987). However, little systematic
research has been done to investigate customer
evaluations of service quality for technology-based
self-service options.
Service quality is a critical issue for both con-
sumers and service providers. Consumers seek
and demand high quality services (Sherden, 1988;
The Wall Street Journal, 1990a), while service
providers hope that quality services will enhance
their image, sales, and profitability (Buzzell and
Gale, 1987; Berry et al., 1989; Gummesson, 1993).
Although service quality has received much atten-
tion in the literature (Gronroos, 1984; Jacoby and
Olson, 1985; Parasuraman et al., 1988) and the
concept of 'customer participation,' i.e., cus-
tomers actively participating in service delivery,
has been discussed (Bateson, 1985; Schneider and
Bowen, 1985; Silpakit and Fisk, 1985), no concep-
tual framework has been developed to study ser-
vice quality for self-service options in general or
technology-based self-service options in particu-
lar.
In an exploratory study, Langeard et al. (1981)
examined factors relevant for self-service (in gen-
eral) and found among other things that time and
control were important to those who preferred
self-service options. Ledingham (1984) explored
the use of videotext services at home and found
that time savings were important to consumers
but could not compensate for the loss of social
interaction. Cowles and Crosby (1990) investi-
gated the 'personalness' of new communication
media and found that people have different toler-
ances for replacing people with machines. Al-
though these studies have not proposed a concep-
tual framework to study self-service or technol-
ogy-based self-service options, nor have they in-
vestigated service quality with respect to such
options, they have laid the groundwork for pro-
ceeding with such research.
The purpose of this study is to propose and
test alternative models of service quality for tech-
nology-based self-service options by drawing on
consumer decision-making research. A concep-
tual framework is developed to integrate two
important research issues-service quality and cus-
tomer participation in technology-based service
delivery. The study represents one of the first
attempts to apply consumer decision making con-
cepts to the services area and explores an-
tecedents of service quality in terms of decision-
making theory. In addition, these proposed mod-
els are tested under different situational condi-
tions in order to investigate the impact of situa-
tional factors on service quality and customer
participation in service delivery. The results of
the study suggest strategic implications for firms
in terms of designing and promoting self-service
innovations based on technology. Directions for
continued research on customer evaluations of
service quality, customer participation issues, and
technology-based service delivery are suggested.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1. Developing alternative models of service qual-
ity
Much of the literature on 'customer participa-
tion' in service delivery (i.e., self-service options)
is based on a management perspective of quality.
Customers are viewed as 'partial employees'
whose participation or performance in service
delivery can be used by the service firm to im-
prove the quality of its operations (e.g., Schneider
and Bowen, 1985; Mills and Morris, 1986; Kelley
et al., 1990). Customer participation in this paper
is viewed from the customer's perspective in or-
der to investigate the factors underlying the cus-
tomer's decision to 'participate' in the service
delivery. Similarly, service quality in this paper is
based on the customer's perspective which often
differs from the producer's evaluation and is criti-
cal for predicting shopping behavior (Zeithaml,
1988; Gronroos, 1993). Jacoby and Olson (1985)
suggest that subjective quality (or customer evalu-
ation) is more closely tied to sales performance,
and therefore merits more attention than objec-
tive quality (or management evaluation).
Given that technology-based self-service op-
tions are relatively new forms of service delivery,
service firms need strategic direction regarding
 P.A. Dabholkar / lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996)29-51 31

whether or not to offer such options and how to
design and promote them. As of now they have
little knowledge about decision-making models
that consumers would use to evaluate and select
technology-based self-service options. Traditional
service quality models based on disconfirmation,
i.e., expectations-perceptions (Gronroos, 1983;
Parasuraman et al., 1988) would be difficult to
apply as consumers may not have experienced
these options and thus would not be able to
indicate their perceptions of reliability and other
dimensions. For the same reason, recently sug-
gested service quality models based only on per-
ceptions (Cronin and Taylor, 1992) would also not
be applicable. The only types of evaluations cus-
tomers would have, about service delivery that
they have not yet tried, would be expectations.
Further, technology-based self-service options

ATTRIBUTE-BASED MODEL
(Cognitive Evaluation of Characteristics Associated with
Technology-Based Self Service Options)

Expected Speed of D e l i v e r ~ H!

Expected Ease of Use ~ _ ~ . . " Expected Intention

Service Quality of H8 to Use
H3
Expected Reliability ~ Technology-Based Technology-Based
Self-Service Option Self-Service Option
Expected EnjoyH m e n ~ 5 / / ~ "H' 4~ '
/ -
Expected Controlf

OVERALL AFFECT MODEL

(Affective Process of Evaluation based on Disposition toward
Technology-Based Self-Service Options)

Attitude toward Using.

Technological Products~H6

~",,~, Expected Intention

Service Quality of H8 to Use
Technology-Based Technology-Based
Self-Service Option Self-Service Option

Need for I n t e r a c t i o n / ~
with Service Employee

Fig. 1. Alternative models of service quality for technology-basedself-serviceoptions.

32 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. Z of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51

r e p r e s e n t a u n i q u e form of service delivery, a n d D r a w i n g o n c o n s u m e r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g re-

the d i m e n s i o n s of service quality suggested in
t r a d i t i o n a l m o d e l s m a y n o t apply. Interviews with
p o t e n t i a l c u s t o m e r s of t e c h n o l o g y - b a s e d self-
service o p t i o n s a n d a n e x a m i n a t i o n of past stud-
ies o n service delivery, self-service, a n d the use of
technological p r o d u c t s m u s t suggest the a p p r o p r i -
ate d i m e n s i o n s of service quality.
search, two a l t e r n a t i v e m o d e l s of service quality
are proposed: a n a t t r i b u t e - b a s e d m o d e l a n d a n
overall affect m o d e l (see Fig. 1). T h e attribute-
based m o d e l is b a s e d o n a cognitive a p p r o a c h to
decision making, w h e r e c o n s u m e r s would use a
c o m p e n s a t o r y process ( J o h n s o n , 1984; D a b -
holkar, 1994b) to evaluate a t t r i b u t e s associated

Table 1
Determining relevant factors for evaluating service quality of technology-based self-service options
Factors relevant to Findings from Past research findings
customers in using qualitative research on service delivery,
technology-based specificallyconducted self-service, and
self-service options for this study use of technological products
Characteristics associated with technology-based self-service options:
Time taken to use Yes Lovelock and Young, 1979
Langeard et al., 1981
Hornik, 1984
Ledingham, 1984
Maister, 1985
Effort required to use Yes Langeard et al., 1981
Davis et al., 1989
Bagozzi, 1990 (ease of use)
Complexity of process Yes Williams et al., 1985
Cowles, 1989 (personalness)
Reliability of outcome Yes Evans and Brown, 1988
Parasuraman et al., 1988
Van Gorder, 1990
Accuracy of outcome Yes Davis et al., 1989, Davis et al., 1992,
Bagozzi, 1990 (performance)
Enjoyment in using option Yes Langeard et al., 1981
Holbrook et al., 1984
Davis et al., 1992
Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982 (novelty)
Control over process No Langer and Saegert, 1977
Langeard et al., 1981
Bowen, 1986
Bateson and Hui, 1987
Guiry, 1992
Disposition toward technology-based self-service options:
Attitude toward using technological products Yes Dickerson and Gentry, 1983
Ledingham, 1984
Williams et al., 1985
Need for interaction with service employee Yes Langeard et al., 1981
Ledingham, 1984
Breakweli et al., 1986
Cowles, 1989
Forman and Sriram, 1991
 P.A. Dabholkar/ Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
with the technology-based self-service option in
order to form expectations of service quality.
Some consumers may have a predetermined idea
about salient attributes, and they may review
these cognitions to form evaluations of service
quality. Other consumers may have little prior
knowledge about the service delivery, but would
think about the process, form cognitions about
relevant attributes, and then combine them to
evaluate service quality. Although this process
may be somewhat complicated, compensatory
evaluations are much more likely in unfamiliar
situations (Bettman and Park, 1980; Park and
Lessig, 1981) and where there are few alterna-
tives facing the customer (Lussier and Olshavsky,
1979).
The overall affect model is based on an affec-
tive approach to decision making where con-
sumers would use overall predispositions (John-
son, 1984; Dabholkar, 1994b) to form expecta-
tions of service quality for a specific technology-
based self-service option. These predispositions
may be toward using technological products in
general or toward using self-service in general.
This model would be more likely if consumers
already had strong predispositions (Bettman and
Park, 1980) toward technology a n d / o r self-
service, if they wanted to minimize the effort
involved in forming evaluations (Johnson, 1984),
or if they were naturally inclined to make deci-
sions based on affect rather than cognitions.
For both models, expected service quality
would influence intentions to use the technol-
ogy-based self-service option (see Fig. 1). Al-
though little empirical research has been done to
support the direct link between service quality
and intentions to use the service, service firms
assume that providing quality services will in-
crease sales (Buzzell and Gale, 1987; Berry et al.,
1989), and researchers suggest that it is a logical
relationship which should be modeled and tested
in various service situations (Jacoby and Olson,
1985; Zeithaml, 1988).
The relevant attributes and dispositions re-
garding technology-based self-service options are
uncovered from past studies and from qualitative
research specifically designed for this study. In-
terviews were conducted with potential customers
33
of technology-based self-service options to deter-
mine the attributes they considered important
with respect to such options. Integrating their
responses, it was found that time, effort, complex-
ity, reliability, accuracy, and enjoyment were im-
portant to customers in evaluating and deciding
to use technology-based self-service options. The
interviewees were also asked what else might
influence their evaluations of such options, and
most people indicated that the way they felt about
using technology and about interacting with ser-
vice employees would be relevant. The findings of
this qualitative research are compared with re-
sults from a number of past studies on service
delivery, self-service, and the use of technological
products (see Table 1). These two sources to-
gether suggest the variables that are incorporated
in the alternative models of service quality in Fig.
1. The hypotheses underlying these models are
discussed below. 2
2.2. Attribute based model
As seen from Fig. 1, five attributes of service
delivery are important to potential customers of
technology-based self-service options: speed of
delivery, ease of use (effort and complexity), reli-
ability (includes accuracy), enjoyment, and con-
trol.
2.2.1. Speed o f delivery
Langeard et al. (1981) found that time was
very important to those who preferred self-service.
Similarly, I_~dingham (1984) found that time sav-
ings were important to people in using electronic
banking and shopping. Time in these studies could
be interpreted to include waiting time as well as
the time taken for active delivery of the service.
The results of the qualitative research also sug-
gested that time was important to potential cus-
tomers of technology-based self-service options,
but respondents specifically mentioned both
speed of service delivery and waiting time. In this
2 The modelsdeveloped in this paper are equally applica-
ble to technology-basedself-serviceoptionsthat the customer
has tried, simply by substituting 'perceptions' for 'expecta-
tions' in the consumer'sevaluationof the service delivery.
34 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
paper, waiting time is examined separately as a
situational factor and expected speed of delivery
is defined as the customer's expectation of the
time it would take to actively perform the service.
The rationale for separating these two factors is
that one may view the actual use of an ATM as
fast, but there may be a long waiting line (e.g.,
Kolesar, 1984).
Customers today are highly sensitive to the
speed of service delivery (The Wall Street Jour-
nal, 1990b; Bateson, 1985; Silpakit and Fisk,
1985), and studies have shown that they usually
overestimate the time taken to deliver a service
(Hornik, 1984). Lovelock and Young (1979) sug-
gest that some people prefer to perform the
service themselves, specifically to reduce delivery
time. This may be explained by Maister's (1985)
observation that unoccupied time feels longer
than occupied time. Maister (1985) also suggests
that slow service delivery affects our overall per-
ceptions of service quality. Thus, if customers
expect that a service will be delivered speedily,
they are likely to evaluate the service more highly.
HI: Expected speed of delivery of the technol-
ogy-based self-service option will have a positive
effect on expected service quality.
2. 2. 2. Ease o f use
Langeard et al. (1981) found that in deciding
between alternative service delivery options, cus-
tomers considered the effort involved in using the
service delivery to be somewhat important. The
qualitative research suggested that some poten-
tial customers of technology-based self-service
options were concerned about the effort required
to use such options and the complexity of the
process of service delivery. These two character-
istics - effort and complexity -appear to be re-
lated and encompassed in 'ease of use,' found to
be an important attribute to customers in using
computer technology (Davis et al., 1989; Bagozzi,
1990). Some researchers have referred to the
'personalness' of different media (Williams et al.,
1985) and others to the 'personalness' of auto-
mated service options (Cowles, 1989) in referring
to the responsiveness or ease of use of these
options and found that it was an important fac-
tor.
Customers may be concerned about ease of
use for several reasons. One reason may be re-
lated to saving actual effort expended. Another
reason may be to reduce social risk. If customers
expect the technology to be difficult to use, they
may become concerned about social risk (i.e.,
they may fear looking foolish as they struggle to
use it) and will view this as a low quality option.
Instead, if they expect the technology to be easy
to use, they will view the service delivery based
on this technology as a high quality option.
H2: Expected ease of using the technology-
based self-service option will have a positive ef-
fect on expected service quality.
2.2.3. Reliability
Parasuraman et al. (1988) have identified relia-
bility of the service as an important determinant
of service quality. A recent survey of service
customers (Van Gorder, 1990) found reliability to
be the most important factor in determining ser-
vice quality. Studies on the use of computer tech-
nology have also found performance or depend-
ability of the options to be an important dimen-
sion (Davis et al., 1989; Bagozzi, 1990; Davis et
al., 1992). Customers may be especially con-
cerned about the reliability of new service deliv-
ery options based on technology because they
may envision some performance risk in that these
options may not work well (Evans and Brown,
1988). Finally, some respondents interviewed in
the qualitative study mentioned that reliability
and accuracy of the outcome would be relevant
for evaluating technology-based self-service op-
tions.
H3: Expected reliability of the technology-
based self-service option will have a positive ef-
fect on expected service quality.
2. 2. 4. E n j o y m e n t
Respondents in the qualitative investigation
said that they would be more likely to use a
technology-based self-service option if it looked
like something that would be enjoyable. Langeard
et al. (1981) found that some people enjoy playing
with machines and suggest that these people may
 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
prefer self-service options that allow them to do
so. Similarly, Holbrook et al. (1984) point out the
enjoyment aspect of computer software and
games, and Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) sug-
gest that the novelty aspect encourages customers
to try new products. Research on the use of
computer technology (Davis et al., 1992) found
that customers value the fun involved in using
such products. Thus, for technology-based self-
service options, we expect enjoyment (arising in-
trinsically from interacting with such options or
from the novelty aspect) to be import'ant to cus-
tomers in evaluating such options.
H4: Expected enjoyment from using the tech-
nology-based self-service option will have a posi-
tive effect on expected service quality.
2.2.5. Control
In the context of a service encounter, per-
ceived control has been described as the amount
of control that a customer feels h e / s h e has over
the process or outcome (Bateson and Hui, 1987;
Langeard et al., 1981). Extending the concept
from perceptions to expectations, expected con-
trol is defined as the amount of control a cus-
tomer expects to have over the process or out-
come of a service encounter. Langeard et al.
(1981) found that control is important to cus-
tomers in using self-service. Bateson (1985) and
Bowen (1986) suggest that people choose self-
service options not for monetary savings, but to
feel in control. Guiry (1992) suggests that control
would be important to customers in any type of
service delivery. In a comparison with the find-
ings of past research, control was the only vari-
able not uncovered in the qualitative research
specifically conducted for this study (possibly be-
cause it is a factor people may find difficult to
articulate). Nevertheless, control is likely to be
quite relevant for evaluating technology-based
self-service options, given that it is a factor intrin-
sically important to most people.
A person's belief that h e / s h e has (or will
have) control, even in the absence of real control,
will result in benefits similar to those associated
with real control (Glass and Singer, 1972; Langer,
1975). This sense of control can be as significant
35
as actual control; moreover, it can increase the
evaluation of the experience (Langer and Saegert,
1977). Bateson and Hui (1987) propose that by
increasing perceived control one can enhance the
value of the service to the customer. Applying the
same logic, it is proposed that by increasing ex-
pected control, the expected value of the service
to the customer would be enhanced.
H5: Expected control in using the technology-
based self-service option will have a positive ef-
fect on expected service quality.
2.3. Overall affect model
As seen from Fig. 1, two general dispositions
are important to potential customers of technol-
ogy-based self-service options: attitude toward us-
ing technological products and need for interac-
tion with the service employee.
2.3.1. Attitude toward using technological products
Many of the technology-based self-service op-
tions are fairly new (e.g., automated airline ticket-
ing machines) and the majority of customers may
not be familiar with them. In such cases, people
tend to make judgments about the new situation
based on related past experiences and attitudes.
For example, in communications research, the
user views new communications options as mere
extensions of existing technologies (Williams et
al., 1985). Most people today are likely to have
been exposed to some technological products
(e.g., computers, ATMs, VCRs) and to have
formed an attitude toward using such products,
ranging anywhere from very favorable to very
unfavorable. This type of generalized attitude is
referred to as category-based affect (Fiske, 1982).
Empirical studies (Dickerson and Gentry, 1983;
Ledingham, 1984) have shown the existence of
such generalized attitude and its influence on the
evaluation of new, but similar, situations.
H6: Attitude toward using technological prod-
ucts (in general) will have a positive effect on the
expected quality of the technology-based self-
service option.
36 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
2.3.2. Need for interaction with service employee
Although Langeard et al. (1981) failed to find
that the need for interaction with a person influ-
enced the selection of self-service options, they
believed this to be a relevant factor for such
contexts. For many service encounters, human
interaction is extremely important in evaluating
the service (Solomon et al., 1985; Bitner et al.,
1990). Especially for services where the customer
is present, customers evaluate the quality of the
process by the nature of the interaction
(Gronroos, 1982; Surprenant and Solomon, 1987).
Some people feel strongly that the use of ma-
chines in a service encounter dehumanizes the
interaction (Breakwell et al., 1986; Zeithaml and
Gilly, 1987). Ledingham (1984) found that the
loss of social interaction in a self-service situation
could not compensate for time savings. On the
other hand, some people enjoy playing with ma-
chines (Langeard et al., 1981) or computer games
(Holbrook et al., 1984) and this may reduce their
need for interaction with service employees. Stud-
ies show that people have different perceptions
of automated technologies based on the impor-
tance of retail contact to them (Forman and
Sriram, 1991) and as a result have different toler-
ances for replacing people with machines in ser-
vice encounters (Cowles, 1989; Cowles and
Crosby, 1990).
H7: Need for interaction with the service em-
ployee will have a negative effect on the expected
quality of the technology-based self-service op-
tion.
2.4. Service quality-intention link
The next hypothesis fits in with both models
shown in Fig. 1. From the service finn's perspec-
tive, unless expected service quality is translated
into actionable behavior, there is little benefit for
the firm. Service providers work on the assump-
tion that providing quality services will lead to
greater use of their service (Jacoby and Olson,
1985; Buzzell and Gale, 1987; Zeithaml, 1988;
Berry et al., 1989). Moreover, the link between
expected quality and intentions to use a given
service option is intuitive. An individual who be-
lieves that a service delivery option will be high in
quality would intend to use that option, as long as
price and other situational factors are the same
for alternative service delivery options.
H8: Expected service quality of the technol-
ogy-based self-service option will have a positive
influence on intention to use that option.
2.5. Effect of situational factors
Silpakit and Fisk (1985) indicate that situa-
tional factors should have a strong influence on
the use of self-service. Situational conditions
could include crowding, whether the customer is
alone, with friends or family, or in a hurry. Situa-
tional factors may become evident only after ar-
riving at the service site, such as waiting time for
a given service delivery option. In general, one
would expect that waiting time would adversely
impact intentions to use a service delivery option,
especially if the customer is in a hurry. With
regard to the other situational factors, the out-
come is not as clear. For example, if people are
unfamiliar with a technology-based self-service
option or uncomfortable with technology in gen-
eral, they may be less likely to use the option in
crowded conditions. On the other hand, people
who are uncomfortable speaking to (or in front
of) others may be more likely to use the technol-
ogy-based self-service option under crowding. 3
Similarly, it is possible that customers would be
more likely to use a technology-based self-service
when alone, just to have something to do (Mais-
ter, 1985). On the other hand, some customers
may be less likely to seek the technology-based
self-service option if alone because they need
human interaction (Forman and Sriram, 1991).
3 Although the literature does not indicate how customer
would evaluate technology-based self-service options under
crowded conditions, aspects of crowding were examined in
this study in an exploratory sense. Crowding was manipulated
as a treatment and manipulation checks showed that condi-
tions of crowding were noted by respondents. However,
crowding was found to have no effect on service quality or
intentions to use technology-based self-service options. For
the sake of brevity and due to the exploratory nature of these
hypotheses, crowding is not discussed in this paper.
 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
Given that some of these situational conditions
may work differently for different individuals,
only waiting time is examined in this study.
Waiting time in service situations has been
studied empirically by applying queuing theory to
service industries with waiting lines such as tele-
phone service and airlines (Czepiel, 1980). Wait-
ing time is also relevant for many service situa-
tions such as fast-food restaurants, banking, gro-
cery stores, department stores, discount stores,
post offices, and public health delivery systems.
Chebat and Filiatrault (1993) studied the impact
of videos at the service site on reducing perceived
waiting time. The rationale for such studies is
that customers today place enormous emphasis
on time and simply hate to wait in line (The New
York Times, 1989; The Wall Street Journal,
1990b). Given a choice, people will tend to choose
the option with less waiting time (Clemmer and
Schneider, 1989; Dabholkar, 1990; Langeard et
al., 1981; Maister, 1985). Further, waiting time is
likely to adversely affect evaluations of service
quality (Dube-Rioux et al., 1989; Taylor, 1994).
Thus:
H10a: Waiting time will have a negative effect
on intention to use the technology-based self-
service option.
H10b: Waiting time will have a negative effect
on expected service quality of the technology-
based self-service option.
3. Method
The primary research objectives of this study
were to test alternative models of service quality
(cognitive versus affective) for technology-based
self-service options, to determine which attributes
a n d / o r dispositions are important in evaluating
service quality for such options, and to investigate
the impact of service quality on intentions to use
such options. A secondary research objective was
to test these models for different situational con-
ditions.
37
3.1. Research context and design
The research hypotheses were tested (using a
scenario and questionnaire approach) for a con-
text where customers can either use a computer-
ized, touch screen to order a meal in a fast food
restaurant (technology-based self-service) or or-
der verbally. This particular context was selected
for several reasons. First, touch screens in a fast
food setting are currently being tested as direct
ordering options for customers (Marketing News,
1990; Nation's Restaurant News, 1991). Second,
fast food restaurants are frequented by a more
representative sample of the general population
than are airports, catalog stores, movie theaters,
or sports events (The Scarborough Market Re-
port, 1986). Third, the touch screen technology is
easier to use than, for example, computer key-
boards and would be easier to visualize or think
about. Finally, the situation itself involves a lower
level of risk than one where the outcome is
critical (e.g., using a medical innovation to moni-
tor one's own health). Thus, the fast food setting
is a good choice for initial theory development
and for suggesting relevant implications for prac-
titioners. Research implications could extend to
other on-site, service encounters which offer simi-
lar technology-based self-service options.
It was decided to use a scenario approach over
a field study for several reasons. In testing a new
and as of yet widely unavailable technology-based
self-service option, a study of potential customers
and their expectations was thought to be appro-
priate. Secondly, given the comprehensive models
being tested, the questionnaire was too long to be
administered in a field study to customers of
'fast' food. Responses in that setting would not
be as thoughtful, and furthermore, less hurried
people would self-select themselves into the sam-
ple, creating non-respondent bias. In addition,
using the scenario approach allowed manipula-
tion of waiting time, something not easily repli-
cated in field experiments (Mixon, 1971; Jackson
et al., 1984).
College students were selected as a highly rele-
vant population for this study, given that they
represent a critical consumer segment for fast
food restaurants (The Wall Street Journal, 1990c).
38 P~A. Dabholkar / lntern. J. o f Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
Problems of external validity faced by the major-
ity of studies using student samples would not be
relevant for this study, because the results can
simply be used by service firms to target college
students. With regard to combining the scenario
approach with college students as respondents,
most students are likely to be familiar with fast
food restaurants and the use of touch screens
(e.g., in using ATMs), and therefore should be
able to imagine the scenario quite easily. Further-
more, the students were asked to play themselves
in this situation. The scenario method has been
found to be particularly successful when subjects
are required to play themselves instead of acting
out unfamiliar roles (e.g., college students or typi-
cal consumers asked to imagine they are indus-
trial buyers or senior executives) (Eroglu, 1987).
Several versions of the scenario were devel-
oped, with different amounts of detail in each
regarding the touch screen option. The realism of
each scenario was tested by asking students (not
the same students as interviewed earlier) to read
a particular version and then rate the realism
using two seven-point Likert scales. The items
used were: 'the situation described was realistic'
and 'I had no difficulty imagining myself in this
situation' and were based on extensive work done
on testing the realism of scenarios by Eroglu
(1987). The realism checks showed no significant
differences between the different versions of the
scenarios and all were judged to be highly realis-
tic (rating about 6 on a scale of 1 to 7). It was
decided to use the simplest scenario (see Ap-
pendix A) in order to let the respondent imagine
the type of situation (e.g., type of fast food
restaurant, type of touch screen, whether alone
or with friends, and type of meal order) that was
most realistic to him/her.
Different manipulations were pre-tested for
waiting time such as the number of people ahead
in line or the actual waiting time in minutes. The
one that worked best in creating a treatment
effect simply stated, 'You estimate that the wait-
ing time for using the touch screen to order will
definitely be longer (shorter) than the waiting
time for placing a verbal order.' Perhaps this
treatment worked best because it allowed respon-
dents to imagine waiting time in terms of number
of people or minutes, whichever was easier and
more natural for them to do. A control scenario
was used where waiting time was not mentioned.
3.2. Data collection and sample statistics
The sample consisted of 505 undergraduate
students from a large university. Almost half the
respondents were men (46.5%) with an average
age of 24.80. Women represented 53.5% of the
sample with an average age of 25.31. Less than
one-tenth (8.8 percent) of the respondents re-
ported eating at fast food restaurants 1-2 times a
week, nearly three-fifths (57.6 percent) ate at fast
food restaurants 3-5 times a week, and a third
(33.6 percent) ate 6-8 times a week (apparently,
some ate at fast food restaurants more than once
a day).
Data collection was done in classrooms after
informing respondents that the exercise was vol-
untary and that responses would be anonymous.
Questionnaires were handed out so that respon-
dents were randomly assigned to treatments. On
handing in the questionnaires, respondents were
given a one-page sheet (with a matched number
to the questionnaire) to conduct checks for treat-
ment manipulation and realism of the scenarios.
Of the total respondents, 204 received the low
waiting time treatment, 186 received the high
waiting time treatment, and 115 were used as the
control group whose scenarios had no mention of
waiting time.
3.3. Measurement
3.3.1. Expected speed of delivery
Langeard et al. (1981) measured 'time' in their
study by asking respondents which service option
(in a given scenario) was faster in their opinion.
Respondents may have considered 'time' to be
waiting time for the option a n d / o r speed of
delivery. In addition, given that they used a sin-
gle-item measure, the reliability cannot be ascer-
tained. Finally, this was a 'relative' item (i.e.,
measuring time for two options in a comparative
sense) and therefore inappropriate for the at-
tribute-based model in this study. Hence, a new
scale was developed to measure expected speed
 P.A. Dabholkar/ lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
of delivery. Two seven-point semantic differential
items were used following the statement, 'Using
the touch screen ordering option will...'. The
endpoints for these items were 'be (fast/slow)
once I'm at the counter' and 'take a (long/short)
time at the register.' The items emphasize 'being
at the (service) counter/register' to indicate that
the customer has moved up in line and is ready to
order. This emphasis is aimed at reducing or
eliminating any confounding between waiting time
and expected speed of delivery.
3.3.2. Expected ease o f use
Past measures of ease of use are also not
applicable for this study. In their research on the
use of computer technology, Bagozzi (1990) and
Davis et al. (1989) measured ease of use in terms
of becoming skillful at using word processing and
getting the program to do what the customer
wanted, aspects relevant for continued use of
word processing but not for infrequent use of a
touch screen to order food. Hence, a new scale
was developed to measure the ease of using the
touch screen in terms of how easy or effortless it
would be to use this option. The scale consisted
of four seven-point semantic differential items
following the statement, 'Using the touch screen
ordering option will...'. Endpoints for these
items were ' ( b e / n o t be) complicated,' ' ( b e / n o t
be) confusing,' 'take (a lot of/little) effort,' and
'require (a lot o f / l i t t l e ) w o r k . '
3.3.3. Expected reliability
Expected reliability refers to customer expec-
tations of how accurately their orders will be
filled when they use the technology-based self-
service option. Items from past research measur-
ing reliability (Parasuraman et al., 1988) are not
applicable to this context because those items are
linked with promises a n d / o r service personnel.
Hence, a new scale with four seven-point seman-
tic differential items was developed to encompass
this dimension. The items followed the statement,
'Using the touch screen ordering o p t i o n . . . ' . The
endpoints for these items were 'means I will
( g e t / n o t get)just what I ordered,' 'is something I
( e x p e c t / d o n ' t expect) to work well,' '(will/will
39
not) result in errors in the order,' and '(will/will
not) be reliable.'
3.3.4. Expected enjoyment
Previous measures of enjoyment do appear to
be somewhat relevant for this study. Davis et al.
(1992) measured enjoyment using three seven-
point semantic differential items based on the
words 'enjoyable,' 'fun,' and 'pleasant.' In the
four-item scale used to measure enjoyment in this
study, the words 'enjoyable' and 'fun' were re-
tained and the descriptors 'entertaining' and 'in-
teresting' were added to capture the novelty as-
pect of this construct, given the context of service
innovations. The four seven-point semantic dif-
ferential items were used following the statement,
'Using the touch screen ordering option will...'.
As mentioned, endpoints for these items were
' ( b e / n o t be) enjoyable,' ' ( b e / n o t be) fun,'
' ( b e / n o t be) entertaining,' and ' ( b e / n o t be) in-
teresting.'
3.3.5. Expected control
Control is viewed as a characteristic directly
associated with the use of the technology-based
self-service option, independent of situational in-
fluences. Just as customers can think about an
ordering option and judge its speed of delivery or
how much they would enjoy the process, so also
they can judge how much control they would have
over the process if they were to use that option.
Some people may feel more in control using the
technology-based self-service option, possibly be-
cause they do not have too high an opinion of the
service provider's ability. Other people may feel
less in control using this option, possibly because
they are uncomfortable using technology. A two-
item scale was developed to measure expected
control for the specific situation of ordering fast
food using a touch screen option. One item asked,
'How much control will you have over ordering
when you use the touch screen ordering option?'.
Responses were indicated on a seven-point se-
mantic differential scale using end-points 'little
control' and 'a lot of control.' The second item
used a seven-point Likert scale following the
statement, 'the touch screen option will give me
control over ordering a meal.' (Although the word
40 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
control appears in both items, this was found to
be the best wording because words such as 'in
charge' or 'dominate' did not correctly convey the
meaning of this construct.)
3.3.6. Prior experience/attitude toward using tech-
nological products
Prior exposure to this particular technology-
based self-service option was measured directly
by asking respondents if they had ever used a
touch screen to order a meal in a fast food
restaurant. Prior experience with other technolo-
gies (e.g., computers, ATMs) was measured using
a seven-point frequency scale with endpoints (al-
most never/very often). These variables were
measured to provide descriptive statistics for the
sample.
Existing scales for attitudes towards technol-
ogy (e.g., Breakwell et al., 1986) do not measure
attitudes towards using technological products.
Hence, a new scale based on attitudinal measure-
ment (cf. Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) was devel-
oped for this construct using four seven-point
semantic differential items with the endpoints:
good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, harmful/be-
neficial, favorable/unfavorable. These items fol-
lowed the question, 'How would you describe
your feelings toward using technological products
in general (e.g., programming a video cassette
recorder, using a computer)?'.
3.3.7. Need for interaction with service employee
In attempting to quantify need for interaction,
Langeard et al. (1981) used two items 'human
contact' and 'dependence on others' which they
viewed as two separate constructs. Their findings
showed that both had on effect on the selection
of the self-service option. The scale developed in
this study to measure need for interaction com-
bines and expands on the Langeard et al. items.
The focus is on 'interacting with a service em-
ployee'; the phrases 'human contact' and 'depen-
dence on others' may have been too brief to
precisely measure this need within service en-
counters. Four items were developed to measure
this construct: 'human contact in providing ser-
vices makes the process enjoyable for the cus-
tomer,' 'I like interacting with the person who
provides the service,' 'personal attention by the
service employee is not very important to me,'
and 'it bothers me to use a machine when I could
talk with a person instead.' The responses were
indicated on a seven-point Likert scale.
3.3.8. Expected service quality
As Gronroos (1984) suggests, measurement of
service quality must be defined from the cus-
tomer's perspective and must be relevant for the
situation where it is measured. In this study, it is
the expected quality of the technology-based
self-service option that is measured and not the
expected quality of the entire service encounter.
Thus, the three items measuring expected service
quality refer specifically to the ordering situation
and not to the whole service encounter where
several factors (such as food, price, and restau-
rant conditions) may be relevant. The first item
asked, 'What level of service quality would you
receive from the touch screen ordering option?'.
Responses were indicated on a seven-point se-
mantic differential scale with the endpoints
'(high/low) quality service.' The second item was
a seven-point semantic differential scale with
endpoints '(poor/excellent) service' following the
statement, 'Using the touch screen ordering op-
tion will provide... '. The third item used a
seven-point Likert scale following the statement,
'The touch screen ordering option will provide a
high level of service quality.'
3.3.9. Intention to use touch screen
Intentions were measured using two seven-
point semantic differential items with endpoints
likely/unlikely and possible/impossible (see
Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). The stem for these
items asked, 'Would you intend to use the touch
screen to order fast food?'
3.3.10. Manipulation and realism checks
The manipulation check for waiting time asked
respondents to think back to the scenario and
recall whether 'the waiting time for the touch
screen was longer than that for ordering verbally.'
 P.A. Dabholkar / lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51 41

Responses were indicated on a seven-point Likert 4. Results

scale. Realism checks were measured on the same
sheet using two seven-point Likert items. The
statements in these items were: 'the situation
described was realistic' and 'I had no difficulty
imagining myself in the situation.'
4.1. Manipulation and other checks
Manipulation checks were made for waiting
time using ANOVA and found that the treatment

Table 2
Correlations among variables for different waiting time conditions
Int Qual Speed Ease Rely Enjoy Cont Att Need
Low waiting time (n = 204)
Mean 5.71 4.45 5,16 4.86 5.36 5.21 5.35 5.90 4,57
Std. Dev. 1.30 0.90 1.35 1.37 1.19 1.12 1.33 0.82 1.08
Int 1.00
Qual 0.55 1.00
Speed 0.38 0.20 1,00
Ease 0.37 0.22 0.62 1.00
Rely 0.50 0.36 0.56 0.55 1.00
Enjoy 0.46 0.45 0.22 0.16 0.40 1.00
Cont 0.52 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.59 0.33 1.00
Att 0.40 0.22 0.20 0.34 0.32 0.25 0,37 1.00
Need -0.31 -0.31 -0.01 -0.18 -0.25 -0.14 -0,29 -0.27 1.00

High waiting time (n = 186)

Mean 4.77 4.24 4.24 4.40 5.30 4.89 5.36 5.81 4.56
Std. Dev. 1.79 1.07 1.58 1.39 1.09 1.33 1,33 0.87 1.15
Int 1.00
Qual 0.63 1.00
Speed 0.26 0.38 1.00
Ease 0.32 0.37 0.54 1.00
Rely 0.18 0.21 0.30 0.34 1.00
Enjoy 0.48 0.46 0.17 0.10 0.28 1.00
Cont 0.27 0.30 0.28 0.18 0.58 0.29 1.00
Att 0.11 0.22 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.24 0.24 1,00
Need -0.32 -0.31 -0.23 -0.29 -0.23 -0.19 -0.27 -0.04 1.00

Control group (n = 115)

Mean 5.75 4.63 4.89 4.65 5.42 5.15 5.51 5.96 4.38
Std. Dev. 1.45 1.02 1.48 1.40 1.15 1.41 1,22 0.85 1.31
Int 1.00
Qual 0.57 1.00
Speed 0.33 0.31 1.00
Ease 0.45 0.43 0.61 1.00
Rely 0.50 0.37 0.49 0.61 1.00
Enjoy 0.45 0.35 0.12 0.23 0.28 1.00
Cont 0.62 0.40 0.39 0.37 0.52 0.17 1.00
Att 0.39 0,32 0.20 0.18 0.24 0.36 0.37 1.00
Need -0.54 -0.47 -0.21 -0.30 -0.35 -0.23 -0.51 -0.35 1.00

Int: intention to use technology-based self-service option. Qual: service quality of technology-based self-service option. Speed:
speed of delivery. Ease: ease of use. Rely: reliability. Enjoy: enjoyment. Cont: control. Att: attitude toward using technological
products. Need: need for interaction with service employee.
42 P.4. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51

worked well ( F = 133.07, p < 0.001). The means Table 3

of the manipulation check items were 2.74 for low A test of alternative models of service quality for different
waiting time conditions
waiting time, 5.32 for high waiting time, and 3.80
for the control group (on a scale of 1 to 7). Attribute- Overall Combined
based affect model
Scheffe's paired comparison tests showed that all model model
three means differed significantly at p < 0.05.
To ensure that there was no confounding be- Low waiting time (n = 204)
X2 187.26 62.54 343.49
tween waiting time and speed of delivery, t-tests df 102 39 222
were conducted for speed of delivery under high AGFI 0.86 0.91 0.83
and low waiting time. The means for speed of R 2 (service quality) 0.55 0.23 0.60
delivery were 5.17 (low waiting time) and 4.44 R 2 (intention) 0.65 0.62 0.65
(high waiting time), but this difference was not High waiting time (n ~ 186)
statistically significant ( F = 1.24, n.s.). Thus, there gz 125.43 49.91 277.53
was no confounding between waiting time and df 102 39 222
expected speed of delivery. AGFI 0.89 0.92 0.86
Means for the realism checks (using two items) R z (service quality) 0.73 0.17 0.73
R 2 (intention) 0.67 0.66 0.67
rated 5.94 on a scale of 1 to 7, showing that
respondents found all three scenarios to be very Control group (n = 115)
realistic. X2 141.15 51.02 290.39
df 102 39 222
AGFI 0.83 0.88 0.79
4.2. Descriptive statistics R 2 (service quality) 0.70 0.37 0.7,3
R 2 (intention) 0.50 0.50 0.52
About 68.9 percent of the respondents said
they would use a touch screen to order fast food.
Yet, prior exposure to touch screens in fast food
restaurants was almost non-existent, which is un- ing support for the constructs conceptualized in
derstandable given that this is a new form of the study. Construct reliabilities computed for
ordering option. Only eighteen people out of 505 five of these scales from the results of separate
(3.6 percent) had used this ordering option. The confirmatory factor analyses were 0.91 (Ease of
level of prior exposure to using technological Use), 0.88 (Reliability), 0.91 (Enjoyment), 0.86
products in general was neither high nor low with (Attitude toward Using Technological Products),
a m e a n rating of 4.16 (on a scale of 1 to 7), but and 0.83 (Need for Interaction with Service Em-
prior exposure to using automated teller ma- ployee). The remaining four scales had fewer
chines in particular, was quite high at 5.45. Means, than four items; hence, Cronbach's alphas were
standard deviations, and correlations for all the computed for these scales and were 0.81 (Speed
constructs are presented separately for the three of Delivery), 0.69 (Control), 0.85 (Service Quality),
situational conditions (see Table 2). and 0.90 (Intention). Thus, reliabilities ranged
from 0.69 to 0.91, indicating that all the scales
4.3. M e a s u r e validity developed in this study were acceptable and reli-
able measures (Nunnally, 1978).
Confirmatory factor analysis using L I S R E L 7
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989) was conducted for 4.4. A c o m p a r i s o n o f m o d e l s
all the scales together. Confirmatory factor analy-
sis is preferred over exploratory factor analysis It was decided to use structural equations
because it is theory-based, accounts for measure- modeling using L I S R E L 7 to compare the at-
m e n t error, and tests for unidimensionality. The tribute-based and overall affect models. This
results showed a satisfactory fit to the data, with method of analysis has several advantages over
X 2 = 322.42, df = 255, and A G F I = 0.93, indicat- typical multivariate analysis. Whereas two regres-
 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
Table 4
A test of the attribute-based model
P a r a m e t e r estimates and significance for individual hypotheses
HI H2
Low waiting time (n = 204) 0.07 (n.s.) 0.07 (n.s.)
High waiting time (n = 186) 0.06 (n.s.) 0.35 ( p < 0.01)
Control group (n = l l 5 ) -0.13(n.s.) 0.25(p<0.05)
HI: speed of delivery ~ service quality of TBSSO. H2: ease of use ~ service quality of TBSSO. H3: reliability ~ service quality of
TBSSO. H4: enjoyment ~ service quality of TBSSO. H5: control ~ service quality of TBSSO. H8: service quality of TBSSO
intention to use TBSSO.
TBSSO: technology-based self-service option.
The p-values are based on t-values in the L I S R E L output.
sion equations are needed to test each model in
this paper, structural equations modeling allows
all variables to be included in one model and
tests for model fit as well as individual hypothe-
ses. It accounts for measurement error thus re-
vealing relationships that may be otherwise ob-
scured. Finally, an examination of modification
indices can reveal other relationships not hypoth-
esized in the model.
Model testing was done separately for each
situational group: low waiting time, high waiting
time, and the control group. Both models had
good fits with the data irrespective of the situa-
tional condition (see Table 3). Although the AGFI
values were slightly higher for the overall affect
model as compared with the attribute-based
model (0.91 vs. 0.86 for low waiting time, 0.92 vs.
0.89 for high waiting time, and 0.88 vs. 0.83 for
the control group), this difference may be due to
the fact that the overall affect model had fewer
than half the number of indicators as the at-
tribute-based model. 4 As the A G F I values for
both models under all situational conditions are
within an acceptable range, the conclusion is that
both models fit well.
An interesting finding is that the attribute-
based model in each of the three situation ex-
4 Notice for example that the A G F I ' s for the combined
model u n d e r all three situational conditions are lower than
for either model alone (see Table 3). Given that the same
constructs are used in the combined model as in the other two
models, the reduction in A G F I is likely to be due to the
increase in the n u m b e r of indicators in the model.
43
H3 H4 H5 H8
- 0 . 0 2 (n.s.) 0.48 ( p < 0.001) 0.32 ( p < 0.05) 1.31 ( p < 0.001)
- 0 . 5 7 (n.s.) 0.52 ( p < 0.001) 0.62 ( p < 0.05) 1.24 ( p < 0.001)
-0.11(n.s.) 0.47(p<0.001) 0.69(p<0.001) 1.55(p<0,001)
plained far more of the variance for service qual-
ity than did the overall affect model. The R 2 for
service quality in the attribute-based model as
compared to the R 2 for service quality in the
overall affect model was 0.55 vs. 0.23 for low
waiting time, 0.73 vs. 0.17 for high waiting time,
and 0.70 vs. 0.37 for the control group (see Table
3). Combining both models was even more reveal-
ing in terms of variance explained. The combined
model using all the attributes and dispositions as
exogenous variables showed that the increase in
R 2 on including the overall affect variables was
either non-existent or merely incremental over
the variance explained by the attribute-based
model alone. The R 2 for the combined model
was 0.60 for low waiting time, 0.73 for high wait-
ing time, and 0.73 for the control group.
Examining the parameter estimates and t-val-
ues for the individual hypotheses in the
attribute-based model, it was found that hypothe-
ses H4, H5, and H8 were supported for all three
situational conditions (see Table 4). Moreover,
the size of the parameter estimates suggest a
strong, positive effect of enjoyment and control
on service quality and a very strong, positive
effect of service quality on intentions. Hypothesis
H2 was supported for the high waiting time and
control groups but not for the low waiting time
situation. The size of the parameter estimates
suggests that ease of use had a strong, positive
effect on service quality for most people (except
those who faced a short waiting time). Hypothe-
ses H1 and H3 were not supported for any group
suggesting that speed of delivery and reliability
44 PM. Dabholkar ~Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
Table 5
A test of the overall affect model
Parameter estimates and significance for individual hypotheses
H6
Low waiting time (n = 204) 0.64 ( p < 0.001)
High waiting time (n = 186) 0.47 ( p < 0.01)
Control group (n = 115) 0.66 (p < 0.001)
H6: attitude toward using technological products --* service quality of TBSSO. H7: need for interaction with service employee
service quality of TBSSO. H8: service quality of TBSSO --* intention to use TBSSO.
TBSSO: technology-based self-service option.
The p-values are based on t-values in the LISREL output.
did not have an effect on service quality under
any situation. High modification indices sug-
gested direct effects on intentions from enjoy-
ment and control (in addition to their indirect
effects through service quality) for the low wait-
ing time and control groups. High modification
indices also suggested direct effects on intentions
from speed of delivery, control, and reliability for
the high waiting time group.
Examining the parameter estimates and t-val-
ues for the individual hypotheses in the overall
affect model, it was found that all the hypotheses
H6, H7, and H8 were supported for all three
situational conditions (see Table 5). Thus, atti-
tude toward using technological products had a
positive effect on service quality, need for inter-
action had a negative effect on service quality,
and service quality had a positive effect on inten-
tions as predicted, for all situations tested. Unlike
the attribute-based model, no direct effects on
intentions were suggested by modification in-
dices.
So far all the analyses had been conducted
separately for each waiting time condition. How-
ever, to test the effect of waiting time on inten-
tion to use and expected service quality of the
touch screen option, the entire sample (minus the
control group) had to be used. Waiting time was
modeled as an exogenous (independent) variable
and service quality and intentions as the endoge-
nous (dependent) variables. The model fit was
excellent ( g 2 = 8.01, df = 4, and A G F I = 0.97).
Examining the parameter estimates and t-values
for the individual hypotheses, it was found that
H7 H8
-0.14 (p < 0.05) 1.38 (p < 0.001)
-0.34 (p < 0.001) 1.05 ( p < 0.001)
-0.30 ( p < 0.001) 1.52 ( p < 0.001)
both hypotheses H10a and H10b were supported.
Parameter estimates suggested that waiting time
had a very strong, negative effect on intention
(b = - 1.07, p < 0.001) and a fairly strong, nega-
tive effect on expected service quality (b = - 0.32,
p <0.01). However, R 2 values were not ex-
tremely high especially for service quality. The R 2
was 0.02 for service quality and 0.10 for inten-
sions. 5
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical contribution
Although technology-based self-service options
are becoming more feasible and have obvious
monetary benefits for service firms, consumer
evaluations of service quality for such options
have not been investigated. This research pro-
poses two alternative models of service quality -
an attribute-based model and an overall affect
model - and represents one of the first attempts
to apply consumer decision making concepts to
the services area. Although tested here for expec-
tations of service quality before a service en-
counter, the models are equally applicable for
5 A second model was run which included the effect from
service quality to intentions. This model being 'equivalent' to
the first model (in terms of structural equations) had the same
overall fit. However, the R 2 for intentions increased to 0.69
with the inclusion of service quality as a causal variable.
 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
perceptions of service quality after a service en-
counter.
Consumers appear to favor the attribute-based
model in forming evaluations of service quality
for technology-based self-service options, based
on the finding that cognitive evaluations of ser-
vice delivery attributes explain a sizeable portion
of the variance in expected service quality. Al-
though the overall affect model is also supported,
it does not add further explanatory power to the
attribute-based model. These results support con-
sumer decision making theory wherein unfamil-
iarity with a situation encourages cognitive evalu-
ation (Bettman and Park, 1980; Park and Lessig,
1981) as does the availability of a small number of
options (Lussier and Olshavsky, 1979).
The study tests these models under different
situational conditions to investigate the impact of
situational factors on service quality and cus-
tomer participation in service delivery. The pref-
erence for the cognitive over the affective model
is consistent over all situational conditions, but is
m o s t pronounced for the high waiting time group
(given that there is n o increase in variance ex-
plained on adding the affect variables to the
attribute-based model). An explanation may be
that facing a long waiting time, people are even
more apt to evaluate the option attribute by
attribute to decide if it is worth waiting for.
The individual hypotheses in the models tested
in this study are based on past research on ser-
vice delivery, self-service, and the use of techno-
logical products as well as on qualitative research
specifically conducted for this study. The study
found that enjoyment and control were important
determinants of service quality under all three
situational conditions. Moreover, the results sug-
gested direct effects on intentions from control
under all three situational conditions and from
enjoyment for the low waiting time and control
groups. Thus, feeling in control over the process
of service delivery, enhances consumer evalua-
tions of this process and also directly impacts
intentions to use the option. The potential enjoy-
ment from using this service delivery option en-
hances customer evaluations of this option and
faced with a shorter or similar waiting time (com-
pared to other options), this potential enjoyment
45
also directly increases intention to use the option.
It would appear that faced with a long waiting
time, the impact of the potential enjoyment or
fun from this option is somewhat less relevant.
A third attribute, ease of use, was also found
to be an important determinant of service quality
but only for the high waiting time and control
groups. This suggests that facing a shorter waiting
time for this option, ease of use would not be
critical in evaluating service quality. The last two
attributes, speed of delivery and reliability, did
not influence evaluations of service quality under
any situational condition. However, they did have
direct effects on intentions for the high waiting
time group.
It is possible that speed of delivery and relia-
bility had no effect on service quality in the study
because of the intercorrelations among indepen-
dent variables. Speed of delivery was highly corre-
lated with ease of use and reliability was highly
correlated with control for all three situational
groups. These intercorrelations are not unex-
pected because the constructs for speed of deliv-
ery and ease of use are closely related as are the
constructs for reliability and control. If a service
delivery option is easy to use, it is also likely that
it will be fast. If a service delivery option is seen
as reliable, then the customer will be likely to
expect greater control using this option. Unfortu-
nately, as in typical multivariate analysis, LIS-
R E L is also sensitive to multicollinearity and
hence it is possible that the effects of speed of
delivery and reliability do not emerge (given that
the effects of ease of use and control do).
The direct effect of speed of delivery on inten-
tions for the high waiting time group is certainly
understandable. Facing a long waiting time, a
customer's decision whether or not to use the
option will be influenced by how fast s / h e thinks
the option will be (once s / h e reaches the regis-
ter). The reason for the direct effect of reliability
on intentions is not as clear although a similar
rationale (as for speed of delivery) is possible.
Although the overall affect model did not add
to the variance explained by the attribute-based
model, the results did build on previous research.
The study found that attitude toward using tech-
nological products had a positive effect on evalu-
46 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. Z of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
ations of technology-based self-service options,
supporting and extending previous research on
categorized affect (Dickerson and Gentry, 1983;
Ledingham, 1984) and that need for interaction
with a service employee was an important deter-
minant of service quality which past studies (Lan-
geard et al., 1981) had predicted but not found.
The finding that evaluations of service quality
have a strong positive influence on intended se-
lection of ordering option justifies the attention
given to service quality issues in the literature. It
verifies the intuitive connection that if people
expect a service delivery option to be of high
quality, they will use it. At the same time, it is
curious that while roughly two-thirds of the vari-
ance in intention is explained (by either model)
under the low and high waiting time conditions
(see R 2 in Table 3), only half the variance in
intention is explained (by either model) for the
control group. A possible explanation for these
findings is that for the low and high waiting time
conditions, an important situational factor is
known and this is taken into consideration in
forming intentions to use the option. For the
control group, no situational factor is mentioned
and respondents may reason that irrespective of
their evaluation of service quality, their actual
intentions would at least partially be influenced
by the situational condition at the time (which is
unknown at present). Thus, for this group, service
quality would account for less of the variance in
intention than in groups where situational factors
are known and taken into consideration.
It was found that waiting time as a situational
factor influenced intentions to use a technology-
based self-service option as expected, supporting
previous research (Maister, 1985; Clemmer and
Schneider, 1989). Although waiting time also had
an effect on evaluations of service quality for
technology-based service delivery, this effect was
of practical insignificance. One explanation for
these findings may be that waiting time may only
influence evaluations of service quality if a nega-
tive emotional reaction has occurred while wait-
ing (see Taylor, 1994) and an emotional reaction
with waiting is less likely with a scenario-based
study. Another explanation may be that although
situational influences impact the customer's se-
lection of a service delivery option, evaluations of
service quality may be formed without regard to
situational factors because customers would ex-
pect such factors to differ across incidents of
service delivery.
5.2. Strategic implications for service firms
The finding that more than two-thirds of the
student respondents said they would select touch
screen ordering over verbal ordering should be
quite encouraging to both fast food restaurant
owners and touch screen manufacturers. The re-
suits provide strategic direction by suggesting that
touch screens installed in restaurants located near
college campuses would be well received. Given
how frequently college students eat at fast food
restaurants, the investment would be quickly re-
covered. Further, as students represent a large
proportion of fast food consumers (The Wall
Street Journal, 1990c), it is possible that these
results may be closely replicated in a sample
drawn from the general population. Similar re-
sults may be obtained using other samples whose
members are familiar with technology and sensi-
tive to waiting time, such as white collar workers
and professionals.
Given that the attribute-based model explains
most of the variance in service quality suggests
that service firms can design and promote at-
tributes of the service delivery that will lead to
better evaluations of service quality. Had the
overall affect model accounted for most of the
variance in service quality, this would have sug-
gested that service firms would need an immedi-
ate focus on changing consumer attitudes toward
using technology and toward service providers in
order to improve evaluations of service quality.
Most firms would view this as a formidable task.
Thus, the results of the comparison of models are
encouraging for service firms in terms of strategic
direction.
The finding that enjoyment and control
strongly influence service quality as well as inten-
tions clearly suggests that these two attributes
should be emphasized in service design and pro-
motion. The fun or novelty aspect needs to be
 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
built into the service design, perhaps through the
use of colorful icons and humorous directions. In
terms of promotion, this aspect could be empha-
sized by contrasting people having 'fun' using
such options with people looking quite bored
when interacting with service employees. Simi-
larly, given the importance of control to respon-
dents, service design must ensure that customers
are not overpowered by the technology. In addi-
tion, ads can show the customer 'in control' when
using the technology-based self-service option, by
having them express such thoughts or suggest it
through facial expression.
Ease of use was also a determinant of service
quality for the high waiting time and control
groups. Hence, service firms should design user-
friendly and easy to use technology-based self-
service options that the consumer will evaluate
more highly. Promoting user-friendliness can only
help further enhance customer evaluations of
these options.
The other two attributes, speed of service de-
livery and reliability, had no effect on service
quality but did have a direct effect on intensions
for the high waiting time group. As discussed, the
effect of these two variables on service quality
may not have merged due to multicollinearity
(specifically between speed of delivery and ease
of use and between reliability and control). In any
case, given that they do impact the decisions of
people facing long waiting lines, these attributes
also need to be incorporated into design and
promotion. Service firms should use a technology
that is reliable and a process that is quick and
promote the same. For example, National Car
Rental's ads for their automated, car rental ma-
chines located in airports already emphasize
speed of service delivery and reliability.
Although the overall affect model did not add
much to the attribute-based model in terms of
predictive power, the findings related to this
model have long-range implications for service
firms. Generalized attitudes toward using techno-
logical products had a positive effect on evalua-
tions of service quality for technology-based self-
service options as predicted. Hence, service firms
that plan to install such options would do well
over the long term to promote favorable attitudes
47
toward using technological products by encourag-
ing greater use of technology in general. Need for
interaction was found to be an important nega-
tive d e t e r m i n a n t of service quality for
technology-based self-service options. When ad-
vertising to audiences who have a low need for
interaction with service employees, firms could
emphasize that customers can get what they want
without having to interact with anyone. However,
when advertising to audiences with a high need
for interaction with service employees, firms
would do better to stress the availability of em-
ployees if needed even when using the technol-
ogy-based self-service options.
The negative impact of waiting time on inten-
tions to use technology-based self-service options
is certainly not surprising, but it does have impli-
cations for service design and promotion. A suffi-
cient number of automated, self-service kiosks
should be installed based on demand, to keep
waiting time to a minimum. Special promotions
may be offered at off-peak times to reduce wait-
ing time during peak hours. The lack of waiting
time for technology-based service delivery options
at certain service sites may be promoted to woo
customers to those locations.
5.3. Limitations and f u t u r e research
While the scenario and questionnaire ap-
proach was appropriate for this study for reasons
explained, expectations of service quality or in-
tentions to use technology-based self-service op-
tions as indicated in surveys may not translate
into actual behavior. Future research could inves-
tigate the link between expected service quality
and selection of technology-based self-service op-
tions in an actual service encounter. There is no
doubt that actually seeing how service delivery
options work would evoke more reliable re-
sponses from consumers. However, as most re-
search involves a tradeoff, researchers conducting
a field study would have to acknowledge the
limitations imposed by a shorter questionnaire,
anticipate nonrespondent bias, and accept that
situational factors (such as waiting lines for dif-
48 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
ferent options) may be somewhat beyond the
researcher's control.
Although highly relevant for the context, a
student sample does not offer much variance in
age, education, and attitude toward using tech-
nology. Future researchers could use a broader
based sample to investigate the effect of demo-
graphic differences, as well as differences in atti-
tudes toward using technology, on expectations of
service quality. Age and cultural differences in a
more representative sample may also be reflected
in different levels of the need for interaction with
service employees. In addition to testing for dif-
ferent samples, the models developed in this study
may be tested in other service contexts where
on-site, technology-based self-service options
could be installed. Examples of such contexts
include post offices with stamp machines, airports
with ticketing and car rental machines, hotels
with in-room closed-circuit check-out, and de-
partment stores with electronic, self-service op-
tions.
The only situational influence addressed in
this study was waiting time. Other situational
influences may be investigated in future studies.
Examples might be time pressures (such as being
in a hurry) or the presence of other customers
(such as crowding). Crowding may be more likely
to have an impact on the general population than
on students who are somewhat used to crowding.
It may also work with more complex technologies
where crowded conditions are more likely to cause
stress.
Future studies can continue to apply consumer
decision-making theory to services marketing as
was done in this study by testing alternative mod-
els of service quality for a variety of contexts. It is
possible that the overall affect model would fit
better for certain types of services where cus-
tomers are less able to evaluate alternatives or
where strong emotions are aroused (e.g., health
care). For other contexts where the attribute-
based model explains most of the variance in
service quality as in this study, the attributes
included in this framework may impact evalua-
tions of service quality differently. For example, a
technology that is completely new to the cus-
tomer may increase the importance of reliability
and ease of use on evaluations of the service
delivery. On the other hand, an established tech-
nology may not be evaluated quite as highly on
the enjoyment factor, a large component of which
may be its novelty aspect.
Finally, certain attributes that may be relevant
for other contexts did not emerge from the quali-
tative research and were therefore excluded. The
context selected for this study could be viewed as
a low-risk situation and hence risk was not specif-
ically modeled into the framework. Yet, to some
extent, the model encompasses performance risk
within reliability and social risk within ease of
use. Similarly, given that the context did not
require a high level of expertise to perform the
service, expertise was not specifically modeled
into the framework. Again, to an extent, expertise
could be viewed as encompassed in estimates of
the expected ease of use. For other contexts,
however, such as monitoring one's health or buy-
ing insurance through automation, consumers may
expect that using an automated system would be
quite risky and would require significant expertise
on their part (Insurance Sales, 1988); conse-
quently, for such contexts, risk and expertise may
have to be modeled as separate dimensions. Also,
in this study, physical environment and price were
considered to be the same for the technology-
based self-service as well as the service delivered
by the employee (based on test marketing plans
by a fast food chain). Hence these factors were
not modeled into the framework. However, for
some contexts (e.g., an ATM at a location outside
the bank), physical environment could be impor-
tant in terms of convenience and safety and for
other contexts (e.g., paying a fee for using an
ATM), price could be relevant. Future studies
could investigate factors such as physical environ-
ment and price for contexts where they are ex-
pected to be different across service delivery op-
tions.
6. For further reading
For further reading, see World of Banking,
1990.
 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
Appendix A. Stimulus for questionnaire
A. 1. Situation
You are in a fast food restaurant for lunch.
Approaching the counter, you find that you have
two ordering options: you may order verbally as
usual or use the newly installed touch screen
machine. (The touch screen is located on the
counter and has directions for use and the com-
plete m e n u on the screen itself. Ordering is done
by touching the appropriate boxes on the screen
and items can be re-entered if you make a mis-
take or change your mind.) Both options have the
same m e n u at the same prices and allow you to
personalize your order (e.g., 'hold the mustard,'
etc.). In each case you pay the cashier after
placing the order and the cashier hands you the
food you ordered when it is ready. You estimate
that the waiting time for using the touch screen
to order will definitely be longer (shorter) than
the waiting time for placing a verbal order.
Note: The last sentence in the scenario is used
to manipulate the treatment, waiting time, and is
omitted for the control group.
References
Bagozzi, R.P., 1990, Buyer behavior models for technological
products and services: A critique and proposal, in: W.
Johnston, ed., Advances in telecommunications manage-
ment, Vol. 2 (JAI Press, CT), 43-69.
Bateson, J.E.G., 1985, Self-service consumer: An exploratory
study, Journal of Retailing 61 (3), 49-76.
Bateson, J.E.G. and M.K.M. Hui, 1987, Perceived control as a
crucial perceptual dimension of the service experience: An
experimental study, in: C.F. Surprenant, ed., Add value to
your service (American Marketing Association, Chicago),
187-192.
Berry, L.L., D.R. Bennett and C.W. Brown, 1989, Service
quality: A profit strategy for financial institutions (Dow
Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL).
Bettman, J.R. and C.W. Park, 1980, Effects of prior knowl-
edge and experience and phase of the choice process on
consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis, Journal
of Consumer Research 7 (December), 234-248.
Bitner, M.J., B.H. Booms and M.S. Tetreault, 1990, The
service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable
incidents, Journal of Marketing 54 (January), 71-84.
Bowen, D.E., 1986, Managing customers as human resources
49
in service organizations, Human Resource Management 25
(3), 371-383.
BreakweU, G.M., C. Fife-Schaw, T. Lee and J. Spencer, 1986,
Attitudes towards new technology in relation to social
beliefs and group memberships: A preliminary investiga-
tion, Current Psychological Research and Reviews 5 (1),
34-47.
Business Week, 1990, Service pay is fueling inflation 26 (April
23).
Buzzell, R.D. and B.T. Gale, 1987, The PIMS principles:
Linking strategy to performance (The Free Press, New
York).
Chain Store Age Executive, 1987, Vol. 63 (12), Technology:
At home on the selling floor, 35-36.
Chase, R.B., 1978, Where does the customer fit in a service
operation? Harvard Business Review 56 (November-De-
cember), 137-142.
Chebat, J. and P. Filiatrault, 1993, The impact of waiting in
line on consumers, International Journal of Bank Market-
ing 11 (2), 35-40.
Clemmer, E.C. and B. Schneider, 1989, Towards understand-
ing and controlling dissatisfaction with waiting, Report
89-115 (Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA).
Cowles, D., 1989, Consumer perceptions of interactive media,
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 33 (1),
83-89.
Cowles, D. and L.A. Crosby, 1990, Consumer acceptance of
interactive media, The Services Industries Journal 10 (3),
521-540.
Cronin, J.J. and S.A. Taylor, 1992, Measuring service quality:
A reexamination and extension, Journal of Marketing 56
(3), 55-68.
Czepiel, J.A., 1980, Managing customer satisfaction in con-
sumer service businesses, Report No. 80-107 (Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA).
Dabholkar, P.A., 1994a, Technology-based service delivery: A
classification scheme for developing marketing strategies,
in: T.A. Swartz, D.E. Bowen and S.W. Brown, eds., Ad-
vances in services marketing and management, Vol. 3 (JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT), 239-269.
Dabholkar, P.A., 1994b, Incorporating choice into an attitudi-
nal framework: Analyzing models of mental comparison
processes, Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June), 100-
118.
Dabholkar, P.A., 1990, How to improve perceived service
quality by increasing customer participation, in: B.J. Dun-
lap, ed., Developments in marketing science, XIII
(Academy of Marketing Science, Cullowhee, NC), 483-487.
Davis, F.D., R.P. Bagozzi and P.R. Warshaw, 1989, User
acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two
theoretical models, Management Science 35 (8), 982-1003.
Davis, F.D., R.P. Bagozzi and P.R. Warshaw, 1992, Extrinsic
and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the work-
place, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22 (14), 1109-
1130.
Dickerson, M.D. and J.W. Gentry, 1983, Characteristics of
50 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
adopters and non-adopters of home computers, Journal of
Consumer Research 10 (September), 225-235.
Dube-Rioux, L., B.H. Schmitt and F. Leclerc, 1989, Consumer
reactions to waiting: When delays affect the perception of
service quality, in: T. Srull, ed., Advances in consumer
research, Vol. 16 (Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT), 59-63.
Eroglu, S.A., 1987, The scenario method: A theoretical, not
theatrical, approach, in: S.P. Douglas et al., eds., Proceed-
ings of the AMA Summer Educators' Conference, 236
(American Marketing Association, Chicago).
Evans, K.R. and S.W. Brown, 1988, Strategic options for
service delivery systems, in: C.A. Ingene and G.L. Frazier,
eds., Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educators' Con-
ference (American Marketing Association, Chicago), 207-
212.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, 1975, Belief, attitude, intention,
behavior: An introduction to theory and research (Ad-
dison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA).
Fiske, S.T., 1982, Schema-triggered affect, in: A.H. Hastorf
and A.H. Isen, eds., Cognitive social psychology (Elsevier,
New York), 55-78.
Forman, A.M. and V. Sriram, 1991, The depersonalization of
retailing: Its impact on the 'lonely' consumer, Journal of
Retailing 67 (2), 226-243.
Glass, D.C. and J.E. Singer, 1972, Urban stress (Academic
Press, New York).
Gronroos, C., 1982, An applied service marketing theory,
European Journal of Marketing 16 (7), 30-41.
Gronroos, C., 1983, Innovative marketing strategies and orga-
nization structures for service firms, in: L.L. Berry, G.L.
Shostack and G.D. Upah, eds., Emerging perspectives on
services marketing (American Marketing Association,
Chicago), 9-21.
Gronroos, C., 1984, A service quality model and its marketing
implications, European Journal of Marketing 18 (4), 36-44.
Gronroos, C., 1993, From scientific management to service
management, International Journal of Service Industry
Management 5 (1), 5-20.
Guiry, M., 1992, Consumer and employee roles in service
encounters, in: J.F. Sherry, Jr. and B. Sternthal, eds.,
Advances in consumer research, Vol. 19 (Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT) 666-672.
Gummesson, E., 1993, Quality management in service organi-
zations (International Service Quality Association, New
York).
Holbrook, M.B. and E.C. Hirschman, 1982, The experiential
aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings and
fun, Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September) 132-
140.
Holbrook, M.B., R.W. Chestnut, T.A. Oliva and E.A. Green-
leaf, 1984, Play as a consumption experience: The roles of
emotions, performance and personality in the enjoyment
of games, Journal of Consumer Research 11 (September),
728-739.
Hornik, J., 1984, Subjective and objective time measures: A
note on the perception of time in consumer behavior,
Journal of Consumer Research 11 (June), 615-618.
Insurance Sales, 1988, Vol. 131 (8), High-tech and no-touch:
Is person-to-person selling obsolete?, 26-28.
Jacoby, J. and J.C. Olson, 1985, Perceived quality (Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA), xi-xiv.
Jackson, D.W., J. Keith and R.K. Burdick, 1984, Purchasing
agents' perceptions: A situational approach, Journal of
Marketing 48 (4), 75-83.
Johnson, M.D., 1984, Consumer choice strategies for compar-
ing noncomparable alternatives, Journal of Consumer Re-
search 11 (December), 741-753.
Joreskog, K.G. and D. Sorbom, 1989, LISREL7: A guide to
the program and applications, 2nd ed. (SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL).
Kelley, S.W., J.H. Donnelly, Jr. and S.J. Skinner, 1990, Cus-
tomer participation in service production and delivery,
Journal of Retailing 66 (3), 315-335.
Kolesar, P., 1984, Stalking the endangered CAT: A queuing
analysis of congestion at automatic teller machines, Inter-
faces 14 (6), 16-26.
Langeard, E., J.E.G. Bateson, C.H. Lovelock and P. Eiglier,
1981, Marketing of services: New insights from consumers
and managers, Report No. 81-104 (Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA).
Langer, E.J., 1975, The illusion of control, Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 32 (2), 311-328.
Langer, E.J. and S. Saegert, 1977, Crowding and cognitive
control, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35
(3), 175-182.
Ledingham, J.A., 1984, Are consumers ready for the informa-
tion age?, Journal of Advertising Research 24 (4), 31-37.
Lovelock, C.H. and R.F. Young, 1979, Look to consumers to
increase productivity, Harvard Business Review 57 (May-
June) 168-178.
Lussier, D. and R. Olshavsky, 1979, Task complexity and
contingent processing in brand choice, Journal of Con-
sumer Research 6 (September), 154-165.
Maister, D.H., 1985, The psychology of waiting lines, in: J.A.
Czepiel et al., eds., The service encounter: Managing
employee/customer interaction in service businesses
(Lexington Books, Lexington, MA), 113-126.
Marketing News, 1990, November 12, Arby's adds technology
to boost service, 1.
Mills, P.K. and D.J. Moberg, 1982, Perspectives on the tech-
nology of service operations, Academy of Management
Review 7 (3), 467-478.
Mills, P.K. and J.H. Morris, 1986, Clients as 'partial' employ-
ees of service organizations: Role development in client
participation, Academy of Management Review 11 (4),
726-735.
Mixon, D., 1971, Behavior analysis teaching subjects as actors
rather than organizations, Journal of the Theory for Social
Behavior 1, 19-31.
Nation's Restaurant News, 1991, March 11, Fast feeders turn
on video menu systems, 7.
 P.A. Dabholkar / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 29-51
Nunnally, J.C., 1978, Introduction to psychological measure-
ment (McGraw-Hill, New York).
Parasuraman, A., V.A. Zeithaml and L.L. Berry, 1988,
SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring con-
sumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing
64 (1), 12-40.
Park, C.W. and V.P. Lessig, 1981, Familiarity and its impact
on consumer decision biases and heuristics, Journal of
Consumer Research 8 (September), 223-230.
Schneider, B. and D.E. Bowen, 1985, Employee and customer
perceptions of service in banks, Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 70 (3), 423-433.
Sherden, W.A., 1988, Gaining the service quality advantage,
Journal of Business Strategy 9 (March-April), 45-48.
Silpakit, P. and R.P. Fisk, 1985, 'Participating' the service
encounter: A theoretical framework, in: T.M. Bloch et al.,
eds., Services marketing in a changing environment
(American Marketing Association, Chicago), 117-121.
Solomon, M.R., C.F. Surprenant, J.A. Czepiel and E.G. Gut-
man, 1985, A role theory perspective on dyadic interac-
tions: The service encounter, Journal of Marketing 49
(Winter), 99-111.
Surprenant, C.F. and M.R. Solomon, 1987, Predictability and
personalization in the service encounter, Journal of Mar-
keting 51 (2), 86-96.
Taylor, S., 1994, Waiting for service: The relationship between
delays and evaluations of service, Journal of Marketing 58
(April), 56-69.
51
The New York Times, 1989, April 9, The powerful push for
self-service, $3-1.
The Scarborough Market Report, 1986, (The Journal and
Constitution, Atlanta).
The Wall Street Journal, 1990a, November 12, Many con-
sumers expect better service, B1.
The Wall Street Journal, 1990b, December 7, Their business
is on the line, B1.
The Wall Street Journal, 1990c, November 27, Fast-food
chains invade college eateries, B1.
Van Gorder, B.E., 1990, Satisfying the customer of the '90s,
Credit 16 (March/April), 10-15.
Williams, F., A.F. Phillips and P. Lum, 1985. Gratifications
associated with new communication technologies, in: K.E.
Rosengren et al., eds., Media gratifications research
(SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills), 241-252.
World of Banking, 1986, Vol. 5 (5), Australian bank sets the
pace for automated branches, 31-32.
World of Banking, 1990, Vol. 9 (2), The role of technology in
service quality, 12-31.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988, Consumer perceptions of price, quality
and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence,
Journal of Marketing 52 (July), 2-22.
Zeithaml, V.A. and M.C. Gilly, 1987, Characteristics affecting
the acceptance of retailing technologies: A comparison of
elderly and nonelderly consumers, Journal of Retailing 63
(1), 49-68.