dabholka understanding consumer motivation and behavior related to self scanning in retailing
TRANSCRIPT
Consumermotivation and
behavior
59
International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management
Vol 14 No 1 2003pp 59-95
MCB UP Limited0956-4233
DOI 10110809564230310465994
Understanding consumermotivation and behavior
related to self-scanning inretailing
Implications for strategy and research ontechnology-based self-service
Pratibha A DabholkarUniversity of Tennessee Knoxville Tennessee USA
L Michelle BobbittBradley University Peoria Illinois USA and
Eun-Ju LeeCalifornia State University Los Angeles California USA
Keywords Self-service Supermarkets Retailing Technological innovation Consumer attitudes
Abstract Self-scanning technology is being tested by major supermarket chains as well as othertypes of retailers across the world but the success of the new technology from the consumerrsquosperspective is not yet clear This study investigates consumer reasons for both using and avoidingself-scanning checkouts with a view to addressing these practitioner issues In addition the studyadvances theory on consumer motivation and behavior related to technology-based self-service ingeneral Factors driving preference or avoidance of self-scanning checkouts include attributes of self-scanners consumer differences and situational influences Reasons for preference of other types oftechnology-based self-service over traditional service alternatives are also explored to determinemotivational and behavioral patterns across service contexts A combination of research methods isused to investigate these issues and offers richer findings than any one method used aloneImplications are discussed for managerial strategy as well as for future research
Recent advances in technology have created a surge in ` technology-based self-servicersquorsquo delivery options ranging from in-room hotel checkout and automatedairline ticketing by telephone to Internet shopping (Dabholkar 1994a) Inbanking for example although automated teller machines (ATMs) were notwell received when first introduced more than 20 years ago technology-basedself-service options now include telephone banking Internet banking smart-card banking and home banking via television in addition to the ATM(Prendergast and Marr 1994) Such developments are changing the way servicefirms and consumers interact and are raising many new research issues forinvestigation (Dabholkar 2000)
T h e E m e r a ld R e s e a r c h R e g is t e r fo r t h is jo u r n a l i s a v a ila b le a t
httpwwwemeraldinsightcomresearchregister
T h e c u r r e n t i s s u e a n d fu l l te x t a r c h iv e o f t h is jo u r n a l i s a v a i la b le a t
httpwwwemeraldinsightcom0956-4233htm
The study was made possible by a grant from the College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Tennessee Knoxville
IJSIM141
60
Like the ATM in its early years retail self-scanners first introduced ingrocery stores nearly two decades ago were not well received at the timeHowever unlike ATMs which were eventually accepted self-scanningcheckouts were met with stubborn resistance In fact self-scanning in retailstores represents a classic case of a technology-based self-service that failed onits first inception It is possible that this option was introduced at a time whenconsumers were simply not ready to change their behaviors to adopt a newway of shopping Or it may be that unlike the ATM this particular technology-based self-service was viewed as requiring too much effort on the part of theconsumer
The modern consumer is much more technologically aware and comfortableand supermarket chains are beginning to experiment again with self-scanners(Hennessy 1998) According to the Food Marketing Institute 18 supermarketchains in North America had self-scanning lanes in 1998 (Discount Store News1998a) and by 2004 nearly half of the grocery retailers in the USA will offersome form of self-scanning to consumers (Chain Store Age 2002) That may bean optimistic estimate perhaps by the end of 2000 14 percent of groceryretailers in the USA with 11 or more stores offered self-scanning (Rohland2001) and currently about 20 percent offer self-scanning along with thetraditional checkouts (Forster 2002)
The phenomenon is not restricted to the USA Costco is testing self-checkoutsystems in Canada (Discount Store News 1998b) and NCR reports interest instationary self-scanners from supermarket chains in The Netherlands andGermany (Hunt 1998) Not that Europe has been behind the USA in this areaHandheld self-scanners have been used by preferred customers in majorsupermarket chains in several European countries since the mid-1990s ndash AlbertHeijn in The Netherlands Safeway in the UK SuperQuinn in Ireland Metro inGermany and Monoprix in France (Ross 1997)
Nor are supermarket chains the only retailers to try self-scanning checkoutsWalmart is currently testing four different self-checkout systems and estimatesthat even the smallest machines in each supercenter would add a cost of morethan $20 million (Bowden 2002) Kmart before filing for bankruptcy hadreported satisfactory usage from all of the self-scanners it was testing (ChainStore Age 2002) Retailing consultants predict that if self-scanning checkoutsbecome widely accepted in supermarkets the next service industries toconsider these systems will be drugstores and home improvement chainsgiven their on-going problems with recruiting and the long lines at theircheckouts (Grant 2001)
Given the expense and difficulty related to retaining a sufficient numberof reliable employees retailers in general and supermarkets in particularare viewing self-scanners as a smart alternative to their constant hiring andtraining woes Furthermore if successful self-scanners represent a hugesource of potential savings at a time of economic uncertainty However it isnot at all clear if these investments are paying off at present Although the
Consumermotivation and
behavior
61
number of US consumers who have tried self-scanning checkouts increasedfrom 6 percent in 1999 to 16 percent in 2001 (McDonald 2002) this increaseis not a huge jump and is below industry expectations Target for exampleis refusing to jump on the bandwagon of self-scanning (even though itssupercenters sell groceries) based on a firm belief that customers value thehuman touch at checkouts (Grant 2001)
In fact early tests have shown mixed results as some shoppers seem willingto try the self-scanners and others studiously ignore them (Discount StoreNews 1998a) Feedback from customers suggests that some shoppers like theshorter lines and privacy (Chain Store Age 2002) but others find the systemsdifficult to use and feel uncomfortable with the machines screaminginstructions at them (Wisely 2002) As stationary self-scanners can cost asmuch as $90000 (Grant 2001) before investing money in this particulartechnology-based self-service option on a large scale retailers need todetermine its future potential through systematic in-depth research onconsumer reasons for using or avoiding self-scanning checkouts
It is our objective to conduct research that provides the needed answers forthis pressing practical issue not only in the supermarket industry but forretailing in general In addition the results should be useful for understandingconsumer evaluation and use of other technology-based self-service optionsand thus serve to advance theory in the services marketing field
The only academic research on consumer perceptions of self-scanning isa study by Anselmsson (2001) He examines determinants of perceivedservice quality for grocery and library self-scanning in Sweden andindicates what is important to consumers in evaluating this form of servicedelivery His research includes attributes of technology-based self-serviceas well as consumer characteristics We build on Anselmssonrsquos research in anumber of ways The grocery store used as an empirical setting in hisstudy only offers self-scanning checkouts so that consumers do not have achoice as to service delivery options We broaden the investigation toinclude a choice situation and to probe consumer reasons for both using andavoiding the grocery self-scanning checkout Anselmssonrsquos study includesqualitative research which is used as a guide for his quantitative studyWe use a different approach in that we base our quantitative study onpast theory and simultaneously conduct a qualitative study toallow comparison of the efficacy of different research methods The data inAnselmssonrsquos study were collected through mail surveys Our interviewsare conducted in the field to draw on the immediacy of the setting toinvoke more relevant responses Finally we include possible situationalinfluences on the use of self-scanners which were not considered inAnselmssonrsquos study
Past research on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1996 Meuteret al 2000) has found that perceived attributes of the technology and consumerpreferences regarding interaction with the employee play a role in whether or
IJSIM141
62
not consumers will use such options The methods used to study technology-based self-service have included rigorous multivariate analysis of survey dataand critical incident techniques
This study uses a combination of research methods to determine the factorsthat influence consumers to use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Surveymethodology and quantitative analysis are used to examine the relevance offactors found to be important in past research on technology-based self-serviceIn addition tightly structured interviews and detailed content analysis are usedto extract factors that are important to consumers in using or avoiding the self-scanning checkout The comparison of results from different research methodshas interesting implications for future research methodology in servicesmarketing
The factors investigated encompass perceived attributes of the self-scanners situational influences and consumer differences in terms of relatedbehaviors and demographics The study provides meaningful strategicimplications for retailers as well as advances theory in services marketing thatcan be applied to a host of other service industries where technology-basedself-service options are offered or being considered
Conceptual frameworkToday consumers can choose between a variety of technological options toperform services for themselves at the same time companies can employtechnology at various stages in the service delivery process to improve thequality and productivity of their service offering (Blumberg 1994 Quinn1996) Providing these technological innovations for self-service is challengingthe notion that provider-client interaction is an essential feature of servicedelivery (Prendergast and Marr 1994) and is raising a host of significantresearch issues that need to be investigated (Dabholkar 2000 Lovelock 1995Meuter and Bitner 1998)
In implementing technology-based self-service many service firms hope tooffer better service to consumers But what do consumers see as theconstituents of better service Dabholkar (1996) proposed that speed controlreliability ease of use and enjoyment are all important attributes to consumersin evaluating and using technology-based self-service She found ease of usecontrol and enjoyment to be strong determinants of perceived service qualityin her study on touch screen ordering in fast food restaurants Although speedwas not found to be significant its effect may have been masked by theinclusion of waiting time in her study Similarly the effect of reliability mayhave been masked by its high correlation to control In fact Dabholkarrsquos(1994b) earlier research found performance encompassing reliability andaccuracy to be an important determinant of evaluation and use of technology-based self-service
Other researchers also support these five attributes Studies have foundspeed to be an important determinant of preference for self-service in general
Consumermotivation and
behavior
63
(Bateson 1985) and self-scanning in particular (Anselmsson 2001) Similarlyresearch on self-service (Bateson 1985) and on-line shopping (Hoffman andNovak 1996) shows that consumers perceive increased control in using suchoptions and that it positively affects their evaluation In a discussion onautomated self-service Evans and Brown (1988) suggest that reliability of thetechnology plays a critical part in consumer acceptance of such service optionsFinally studies on the adoption of computer technology (Davis et al 19891992) preference for self-scanning (Anselmsson 2001) and evaluation ofon-line shopping (Childers et al 2001) show that ease of use and enjoyment areimportant aspects for using such options
Consumers who regularly use self-scanning are likely to think all of theseattributes important They would view self-scanners as performing well onthese attributes and this would guide their preference and use of the optionBased on the literature we therefore propose the following hypothesis relatedto attributes of technology-based self-service
H1 Compared to those who do not plan to use it regularly consumers whoplan to use self-scanning regularly will
(a) perceive it as faster
(b) perceive it as offering greater control
(c) perceive it as more reliable
(d) perceive it as easier to use
(e) perceive it as more enjoyable
(f ) prefer it to the traditional checkout
But what are the attributes important to those who prefer the traditionalcheckout Are they concerned about speed control and so on and believe thetraditional checkout performs better on these attributes or do they have otherreasons to avoid the self-scanning checkout
Anselmsson (2001) found that only 25 percent of the respondents thoughtself-scanning was faster than employees scanning the purchases It is possiblethat only those who prefer self-scanning will view it as faster whereas thosewho prefer the traditional checkout will perceive self-scanning as slower Inaddition if the technology is cumbersome or complex or if the consumer is nottechnologically proficient the self-scanning checkout could actually increasethe service delivery time On the other hand both groups may view the self-scanning checkout as faster but the second group may have other reasons forchoosing the traditional checkout such as the human interaction involved
The same type of possibilities exist for the other attributes For exampleconsumers may see self-scanning as reliable but still prefer the traditionalcheckout in order to interact with an employee Or they may think thetraditional checkout is actually more reliable Consumers who prefer thetraditional checkout may feel greater control in using that option or control
IJSIM141
64
may not even be an important factor in their evaluation Given the lack oftheory on consumer avoidance of technology-based self-service based onspecific attributes of such options we plan to investigate possible reasons foravoidance through content analysis
Although speed is closely associated with service quality for many services(Sellers 1990) Ledingham (1984) suggests that efficiency and speed are moreimportant to consumers who use technology to serve themselves Otherconsumers however value human interaction above anything else in servicedelivery (Cowles and Crosby 1990 Dabholkar 1996 Prendergast and Marr1994) In contrast consumers who prefer technology-based self-service mayactually wish to avoid interaction with a service employee (Anselmsson 2001Dabholkar 1996 Meuter et al 2000) Thus consumer attitudes towardinteraction with service employees are likely to influence their use oftechnology-based self-service We hope to discover this relationship throughour content analysis and propose the following
H2a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will wishto avoid interaction with service employees
H2b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will value interaction with service employees
Greater familiarity with technology results in more favorable attitudes towardusing technology-based self-service options in general (Dabholkar 1992 1996)Further once consumers become used to a particular technology they morereadily adopt other technologies (Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Korgaonkar andMoschis 1987) Thus attitudes toward using technology in general (which arelinked to consumer familiarity with technology in general) have a directbearing on consumer attitudes and behavior toward a specific technology-based self-service As in the previous case we hope to discover this relationshipthrough our content analysis and propose the following
H3a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will havefavorable attitudes toward using technology in general
H3b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will have unfavorable attitudes toward using technology ingeneral
We also expect a carryover effect of consumer familiarity and preference forother technology-based self-service options to use of self-scanning Similarlywe expect a carryover effect of consumer avoidance for interacting withemployees in other shopping options to use of self-scanning Considering thetwo effects together we propose the following hypothesis
H4 Consumer who use self-scanning in grocery stores will prefer
(a) shopping from home to shopping at the store
(b) Internet shopping to telephone shopping
Consumermotivation and
behavior
65
(c) using touch-tone dialing to speaking to a person when telephoneshopping
(d) using a computer touch screen in the store to ordering verbally to anemployee in the store
(e) using an ATM to using a bank teller
In addition from the behavioral and motivational patterns that emerge forthese different forms of technology-based self-service options we propose fourhypotheses parallel to hypotheses H2a-b and H3a-b Based on the theorydiscussed earlier for hypotheses H2 and H3 we expect similar relationships forusing and avoiding these other technology-based self-service options as we dofor using and avoiding self-scanning Thus
H5a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will wish to avoid interactionwith service employees
H5b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will value interaction withservice employees
H6a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will have favorable attitudestoward using technology in general
H6b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will have unfavorableattitudes toward using technology in general
Past research (eg Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Prendergast and Marr 1994)found that younger better educated and affluent males were more likely to usetechnology-based self-service Some retailers have observed that olderconsumers do seem somewhat reluctant to use self-scanning (Discount StoreNews 1998a Grant 2001) possibly due to being accustomed to service byemployees in this context Yet Anselmsson (2001) found the opposite to be thecase It is unlikely today that demographic factors play a major role in theevaluation and use of in-store technology-based self-service Therefore wemeasure demographics to investigate these issues only in an exploratory senseThe one hypothesis we propose on demographics that is supported by theory isrelated to Internet access which may be viewed as a more relevant surrogatefor education and income in this context We have noted that as consumersbecome comfortable with technology in one service industry they are morewilling to try technologies in other service industries (Dickerson and Gentry1983 Korgaonkar and Moschis 1987) This suggests that consumers morelikely to use technology-based self-service options are the ones more familiarwith technology in general such as indicated by greater Internet access Thus
H7 Consumers who use self-scanning will have greater access to theInternet than consumers who avoid self-scanning
IJSIM141
66
As before we propose a parallel hypothesis for the other forms of technology-based self-service options explored in this study Thus
H8 Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service willhave greater access to the Internet than consumers who prefer thealternative traditional service option
Researchers suggest that situational factors can influence the use oftechnology-based self-service including Internet shopping (Bobbitt andDabholkar 2001 McMellon et al 1997) Empirical studies (Dabholkar 1996Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002) have substantiated the influence of situationalfactors such as waiting time and crowding on the use of technology-based self-service Based on the literature as well as on observation it is likely that avariety of situational factors such as the length of lines for alternative checkoutoptions time of day day of the week whether the store is crowded andwhether the consumer is in a hurry will influence evaluations of the self-scanning checkout We do not propose hypotheses for situational factorsbecause a rigorous test of these would necessitate an experimental researchdesign Instead we study them in an exploratory sense both by observingconditions at the time of the interview and also by specifically askingconsumers to name situations under which they would use self-scanningcheckouts
To sum the principal research objective for this study is to determine thereasons consumers use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Based on classicadoption literature (eg Rogers 1983 Gatignon and Robertson 1985) as well asthe literature on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1992 1994b1996 Meuter et al 2000 Prendergast and Marr 1994) we expect these reasonsto include ` innovation characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie attributes of self-scanners) as well as` personal characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie consumer attitudes toward interacting withemployees and toward using technology) Another research objective is tocompare use of self-scanning checkouts with consumer shopping preferencesfor other technology-based self-service options to uncover possible behavioraland motivational patterns We also plan to explore the influence ofdemographic factors on the use and avoidance of self-scanning checkouts andother technology-based self-service options Yet another research objective is toinvestigate the effect of situational factors on usage of self-scanning checkoutsFinally we plan to compare results from different research approaches to offerinsights on the approaches themselves All of our findings should haveimplications for managerial strategy as well as for future research on services
MethodologyData collection and sample selectionA large regional supermarket chain in the southeastern USA was selected forthe study A representative store that offered both self-scanning and traditionalcheckout was chosen for data collection Using tightly structured interviewsdata were collected from two groups of shoppers in the selected store One
Consumermotivation and
behavior
67
group consisted of consumers shopping at various locations throughout thestore The other group consisted of shoppers at the self-scannersUndergraduate honor students rigorously trained with practice interviewscollected the data They were monitored on-site and coached as needed bydoctoral students
Data collectors took up strategic spots in the store (including some at thecheckouts) at various times of the day and on various days of the week Everyfifth person encountered in the store by each data collector was approached andasked if they would be willing to answer a few questions In the second grouprespondents were actually in the process of checking out using the self-scanners The students identified themselves to potential respondents in bothgroups and explained that this was a university research project This resultedin an unusually high response rate of 8333 percent The students wereequipped with clipboards and made quick but comprehensive notes as theyconducted the interviews
Interview questionsFor respondents located throughout the store (ie the ` in-storersquorsquo group) a set ofclosed-ended questions measured awareness of the self-scanning checkout inthe store as well as past usage attitude and intentions for future use of the` self-scan optionrsquorsquo For respondents at the self-scanners awareness was evidentHence similar closed-ended questions were limited to past usage of self-scanning and intentions to use the self-scan option in the future
For the in-store group open-ended questions were included to capture whyrespondents liked or disliked the self-scanning checkout For respondents at theself-scanners preference for this option over the traditional checkout wasmeasured quantitatively as described later in this section For both groupsopen-ended questions were included to capture why the respondents planned touse or not use the self-scan option in the future
Both groups were also questioned about their shopping preferences fortechnology-based self-service versus the alternative traditional serviceprovided by an employee Specifically respondent preferences were measuredfor shopping from home vs shopping at the store Internet shopping vstelephone shopping using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a service employeeby telephone using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally toan employee in the store and using an ATM vs using a bank teller
Demographic questions on age gender education and measures of Internetaccess were included for both groups Situational factors including time of dayday of the week crowded conditions relative length of lines at alternativecheckouts and whether the consumer was in a hurry were noted by theinterviewer In addition respondents were asked under what situations theywould use the self-scan option
For the group at the self-scanners additional questions measuredperceptions of speed control reliability ease of use and enjoyment related to
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
60
Like the ATM in its early years retail self-scanners first introduced ingrocery stores nearly two decades ago were not well received at the timeHowever unlike ATMs which were eventually accepted self-scanningcheckouts were met with stubborn resistance In fact self-scanning in retailstores represents a classic case of a technology-based self-service that failed onits first inception It is possible that this option was introduced at a time whenconsumers were simply not ready to change their behaviors to adopt a newway of shopping Or it may be that unlike the ATM this particular technology-based self-service was viewed as requiring too much effort on the part of theconsumer
The modern consumer is much more technologically aware and comfortableand supermarket chains are beginning to experiment again with self-scanners(Hennessy 1998) According to the Food Marketing Institute 18 supermarketchains in North America had self-scanning lanes in 1998 (Discount Store News1998a) and by 2004 nearly half of the grocery retailers in the USA will offersome form of self-scanning to consumers (Chain Store Age 2002) That may bean optimistic estimate perhaps by the end of 2000 14 percent of groceryretailers in the USA with 11 or more stores offered self-scanning (Rohland2001) and currently about 20 percent offer self-scanning along with thetraditional checkouts (Forster 2002)
The phenomenon is not restricted to the USA Costco is testing self-checkoutsystems in Canada (Discount Store News 1998b) and NCR reports interest instationary self-scanners from supermarket chains in The Netherlands andGermany (Hunt 1998) Not that Europe has been behind the USA in this areaHandheld self-scanners have been used by preferred customers in majorsupermarket chains in several European countries since the mid-1990s ndash AlbertHeijn in The Netherlands Safeway in the UK SuperQuinn in Ireland Metro inGermany and Monoprix in France (Ross 1997)
Nor are supermarket chains the only retailers to try self-scanning checkoutsWalmart is currently testing four different self-checkout systems and estimatesthat even the smallest machines in each supercenter would add a cost of morethan $20 million (Bowden 2002) Kmart before filing for bankruptcy hadreported satisfactory usage from all of the self-scanners it was testing (ChainStore Age 2002) Retailing consultants predict that if self-scanning checkoutsbecome widely accepted in supermarkets the next service industries toconsider these systems will be drugstores and home improvement chainsgiven their on-going problems with recruiting and the long lines at theircheckouts (Grant 2001)
Given the expense and difficulty related to retaining a sufficient numberof reliable employees retailers in general and supermarkets in particularare viewing self-scanners as a smart alternative to their constant hiring andtraining woes Furthermore if successful self-scanners represent a hugesource of potential savings at a time of economic uncertainty However it isnot at all clear if these investments are paying off at present Although the
Consumermotivation and
behavior
61
number of US consumers who have tried self-scanning checkouts increasedfrom 6 percent in 1999 to 16 percent in 2001 (McDonald 2002) this increaseis not a huge jump and is below industry expectations Target for exampleis refusing to jump on the bandwagon of self-scanning (even though itssupercenters sell groceries) based on a firm belief that customers value thehuman touch at checkouts (Grant 2001)
In fact early tests have shown mixed results as some shoppers seem willingto try the self-scanners and others studiously ignore them (Discount StoreNews 1998a) Feedback from customers suggests that some shoppers like theshorter lines and privacy (Chain Store Age 2002) but others find the systemsdifficult to use and feel uncomfortable with the machines screaminginstructions at them (Wisely 2002) As stationary self-scanners can cost asmuch as $90000 (Grant 2001) before investing money in this particulartechnology-based self-service option on a large scale retailers need todetermine its future potential through systematic in-depth research onconsumer reasons for using or avoiding self-scanning checkouts
It is our objective to conduct research that provides the needed answers forthis pressing practical issue not only in the supermarket industry but forretailing in general In addition the results should be useful for understandingconsumer evaluation and use of other technology-based self-service optionsand thus serve to advance theory in the services marketing field
The only academic research on consumer perceptions of self-scanning isa study by Anselmsson (2001) He examines determinants of perceivedservice quality for grocery and library self-scanning in Sweden andindicates what is important to consumers in evaluating this form of servicedelivery His research includes attributes of technology-based self-serviceas well as consumer characteristics We build on Anselmssonrsquos research in anumber of ways The grocery store used as an empirical setting in hisstudy only offers self-scanning checkouts so that consumers do not have achoice as to service delivery options We broaden the investigation toinclude a choice situation and to probe consumer reasons for both using andavoiding the grocery self-scanning checkout Anselmssonrsquos study includesqualitative research which is used as a guide for his quantitative studyWe use a different approach in that we base our quantitative study onpast theory and simultaneously conduct a qualitative study toallow comparison of the efficacy of different research methods The data inAnselmssonrsquos study were collected through mail surveys Our interviewsare conducted in the field to draw on the immediacy of the setting toinvoke more relevant responses Finally we include possible situationalinfluences on the use of self-scanners which were not considered inAnselmssonrsquos study
Past research on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1996 Meuteret al 2000) has found that perceived attributes of the technology and consumerpreferences regarding interaction with the employee play a role in whether or
IJSIM141
62
not consumers will use such options The methods used to study technology-based self-service have included rigorous multivariate analysis of survey dataand critical incident techniques
This study uses a combination of research methods to determine the factorsthat influence consumers to use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Surveymethodology and quantitative analysis are used to examine the relevance offactors found to be important in past research on technology-based self-serviceIn addition tightly structured interviews and detailed content analysis are usedto extract factors that are important to consumers in using or avoiding the self-scanning checkout The comparison of results from different research methodshas interesting implications for future research methodology in servicesmarketing
The factors investigated encompass perceived attributes of the self-scanners situational influences and consumer differences in terms of relatedbehaviors and demographics The study provides meaningful strategicimplications for retailers as well as advances theory in services marketing thatcan be applied to a host of other service industries where technology-basedself-service options are offered or being considered
Conceptual frameworkToday consumers can choose between a variety of technological options toperform services for themselves at the same time companies can employtechnology at various stages in the service delivery process to improve thequality and productivity of their service offering (Blumberg 1994 Quinn1996) Providing these technological innovations for self-service is challengingthe notion that provider-client interaction is an essential feature of servicedelivery (Prendergast and Marr 1994) and is raising a host of significantresearch issues that need to be investigated (Dabholkar 2000 Lovelock 1995Meuter and Bitner 1998)
In implementing technology-based self-service many service firms hope tooffer better service to consumers But what do consumers see as theconstituents of better service Dabholkar (1996) proposed that speed controlreliability ease of use and enjoyment are all important attributes to consumersin evaluating and using technology-based self-service She found ease of usecontrol and enjoyment to be strong determinants of perceived service qualityin her study on touch screen ordering in fast food restaurants Although speedwas not found to be significant its effect may have been masked by theinclusion of waiting time in her study Similarly the effect of reliability mayhave been masked by its high correlation to control In fact Dabholkarrsquos(1994b) earlier research found performance encompassing reliability andaccuracy to be an important determinant of evaluation and use of technology-based self-service
Other researchers also support these five attributes Studies have foundspeed to be an important determinant of preference for self-service in general
Consumermotivation and
behavior
63
(Bateson 1985) and self-scanning in particular (Anselmsson 2001) Similarlyresearch on self-service (Bateson 1985) and on-line shopping (Hoffman andNovak 1996) shows that consumers perceive increased control in using suchoptions and that it positively affects their evaluation In a discussion onautomated self-service Evans and Brown (1988) suggest that reliability of thetechnology plays a critical part in consumer acceptance of such service optionsFinally studies on the adoption of computer technology (Davis et al 19891992) preference for self-scanning (Anselmsson 2001) and evaluation ofon-line shopping (Childers et al 2001) show that ease of use and enjoyment areimportant aspects for using such options
Consumers who regularly use self-scanning are likely to think all of theseattributes important They would view self-scanners as performing well onthese attributes and this would guide their preference and use of the optionBased on the literature we therefore propose the following hypothesis relatedto attributes of technology-based self-service
H1 Compared to those who do not plan to use it regularly consumers whoplan to use self-scanning regularly will
(a) perceive it as faster
(b) perceive it as offering greater control
(c) perceive it as more reliable
(d) perceive it as easier to use
(e) perceive it as more enjoyable
(f ) prefer it to the traditional checkout
But what are the attributes important to those who prefer the traditionalcheckout Are they concerned about speed control and so on and believe thetraditional checkout performs better on these attributes or do they have otherreasons to avoid the self-scanning checkout
Anselmsson (2001) found that only 25 percent of the respondents thoughtself-scanning was faster than employees scanning the purchases It is possiblethat only those who prefer self-scanning will view it as faster whereas thosewho prefer the traditional checkout will perceive self-scanning as slower Inaddition if the technology is cumbersome or complex or if the consumer is nottechnologically proficient the self-scanning checkout could actually increasethe service delivery time On the other hand both groups may view the self-scanning checkout as faster but the second group may have other reasons forchoosing the traditional checkout such as the human interaction involved
The same type of possibilities exist for the other attributes For exampleconsumers may see self-scanning as reliable but still prefer the traditionalcheckout in order to interact with an employee Or they may think thetraditional checkout is actually more reliable Consumers who prefer thetraditional checkout may feel greater control in using that option or control
IJSIM141
64
may not even be an important factor in their evaluation Given the lack oftheory on consumer avoidance of technology-based self-service based onspecific attributes of such options we plan to investigate possible reasons foravoidance through content analysis
Although speed is closely associated with service quality for many services(Sellers 1990) Ledingham (1984) suggests that efficiency and speed are moreimportant to consumers who use technology to serve themselves Otherconsumers however value human interaction above anything else in servicedelivery (Cowles and Crosby 1990 Dabholkar 1996 Prendergast and Marr1994) In contrast consumers who prefer technology-based self-service mayactually wish to avoid interaction with a service employee (Anselmsson 2001Dabholkar 1996 Meuter et al 2000) Thus consumer attitudes towardinteraction with service employees are likely to influence their use oftechnology-based self-service We hope to discover this relationship throughour content analysis and propose the following
H2a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will wishto avoid interaction with service employees
H2b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will value interaction with service employees
Greater familiarity with technology results in more favorable attitudes towardusing technology-based self-service options in general (Dabholkar 1992 1996)Further once consumers become used to a particular technology they morereadily adopt other technologies (Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Korgaonkar andMoschis 1987) Thus attitudes toward using technology in general (which arelinked to consumer familiarity with technology in general) have a directbearing on consumer attitudes and behavior toward a specific technology-based self-service As in the previous case we hope to discover this relationshipthrough our content analysis and propose the following
H3a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will havefavorable attitudes toward using technology in general
H3b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will have unfavorable attitudes toward using technology ingeneral
We also expect a carryover effect of consumer familiarity and preference forother technology-based self-service options to use of self-scanning Similarlywe expect a carryover effect of consumer avoidance for interacting withemployees in other shopping options to use of self-scanning Considering thetwo effects together we propose the following hypothesis
H4 Consumer who use self-scanning in grocery stores will prefer
(a) shopping from home to shopping at the store
(b) Internet shopping to telephone shopping
Consumermotivation and
behavior
65
(c) using touch-tone dialing to speaking to a person when telephoneshopping
(d) using a computer touch screen in the store to ordering verbally to anemployee in the store
(e) using an ATM to using a bank teller
In addition from the behavioral and motivational patterns that emerge forthese different forms of technology-based self-service options we propose fourhypotheses parallel to hypotheses H2a-b and H3a-b Based on the theorydiscussed earlier for hypotheses H2 and H3 we expect similar relationships forusing and avoiding these other technology-based self-service options as we dofor using and avoiding self-scanning Thus
H5a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will wish to avoid interactionwith service employees
H5b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will value interaction withservice employees
H6a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will have favorable attitudestoward using technology in general
H6b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will have unfavorableattitudes toward using technology in general
Past research (eg Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Prendergast and Marr 1994)found that younger better educated and affluent males were more likely to usetechnology-based self-service Some retailers have observed that olderconsumers do seem somewhat reluctant to use self-scanning (Discount StoreNews 1998a Grant 2001) possibly due to being accustomed to service byemployees in this context Yet Anselmsson (2001) found the opposite to be thecase It is unlikely today that demographic factors play a major role in theevaluation and use of in-store technology-based self-service Therefore wemeasure demographics to investigate these issues only in an exploratory senseThe one hypothesis we propose on demographics that is supported by theory isrelated to Internet access which may be viewed as a more relevant surrogatefor education and income in this context We have noted that as consumersbecome comfortable with technology in one service industry they are morewilling to try technologies in other service industries (Dickerson and Gentry1983 Korgaonkar and Moschis 1987) This suggests that consumers morelikely to use technology-based self-service options are the ones more familiarwith technology in general such as indicated by greater Internet access Thus
H7 Consumers who use self-scanning will have greater access to theInternet than consumers who avoid self-scanning
IJSIM141
66
As before we propose a parallel hypothesis for the other forms of technology-based self-service options explored in this study Thus
H8 Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service willhave greater access to the Internet than consumers who prefer thealternative traditional service option
Researchers suggest that situational factors can influence the use oftechnology-based self-service including Internet shopping (Bobbitt andDabholkar 2001 McMellon et al 1997) Empirical studies (Dabholkar 1996Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002) have substantiated the influence of situationalfactors such as waiting time and crowding on the use of technology-based self-service Based on the literature as well as on observation it is likely that avariety of situational factors such as the length of lines for alternative checkoutoptions time of day day of the week whether the store is crowded andwhether the consumer is in a hurry will influence evaluations of the self-scanning checkout We do not propose hypotheses for situational factorsbecause a rigorous test of these would necessitate an experimental researchdesign Instead we study them in an exploratory sense both by observingconditions at the time of the interview and also by specifically askingconsumers to name situations under which they would use self-scanningcheckouts
To sum the principal research objective for this study is to determine thereasons consumers use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Based on classicadoption literature (eg Rogers 1983 Gatignon and Robertson 1985) as well asthe literature on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1992 1994b1996 Meuter et al 2000 Prendergast and Marr 1994) we expect these reasonsto include ` innovation characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie attributes of self-scanners) as well as` personal characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie consumer attitudes toward interacting withemployees and toward using technology) Another research objective is tocompare use of self-scanning checkouts with consumer shopping preferencesfor other technology-based self-service options to uncover possible behavioraland motivational patterns We also plan to explore the influence ofdemographic factors on the use and avoidance of self-scanning checkouts andother technology-based self-service options Yet another research objective is toinvestigate the effect of situational factors on usage of self-scanning checkoutsFinally we plan to compare results from different research approaches to offerinsights on the approaches themselves All of our findings should haveimplications for managerial strategy as well as for future research on services
MethodologyData collection and sample selectionA large regional supermarket chain in the southeastern USA was selected forthe study A representative store that offered both self-scanning and traditionalcheckout was chosen for data collection Using tightly structured interviewsdata were collected from two groups of shoppers in the selected store One
Consumermotivation and
behavior
67
group consisted of consumers shopping at various locations throughout thestore The other group consisted of shoppers at the self-scannersUndergraduate honor students rigorously trained with practice interviewscollected the data They were monitored on-site and coached as needed bydoctoral students
Data collectors took up strategic spots in the store (including some at thecheckouts) at various times of the day and on various days of the week Everyfifth person encountered in the store by each data collector was approached andasked if they would be willing to answer a few questions In the second grouprespondents were actually in the process of checking out using the self-scanners The students identified themselves to potential respondents in bothgroups and explained that this was a university research project This resultedin an unusually high response rate of 8333 percent The students wereequipped with clipboards and made quick but comprehensive notes as theyconducted the interviews
Interview questionsFor respondents located throughout the store (ie the ` in-storersquorsquo group) a set ofclosed-ended questions measured awareness of the self-scanning checkout inthe store as well as past usage attitude and intentions for future use of the` self-scan optionrsquorsquo For respondents at the self-scanners awareness was evidentHence similar closed-ended questions were limited to past usage of self-scanning and intentions to use the self-scan option in the future
For the in-store group open-ended questions were included to capture whyrespondents liked or disliked the self-scanning checkout For respondents at theself-scanners preference for this option over the traditional checkout wasmeasured quantitatively as described later in this section For both groupsopen-ended questions were included to capture why the respondents planned touse or not use the self-scan option in the future
Both groups were also questioned about their shopping preferences fortechnology-based self-service versus the alternative traditional serviceprovided by an employee Specifically respondent preferences were measuredfor shopping from home vs shopping at the store Internet shopping vstelephone shopping using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a service employeeby telephone using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally toan employee in the store and using an ATM vs using a bank teller
Demographic questions on age gender education and measures of Internetaccess were included for both groups Situational factors including time of dayday of the week crowded conditions relative length of lines at alternativecheckouts and whether the consumer was in a hurry were noted by theinterviewer In addition respondents were asked under what situations theywould use the self-scan option
For the group at the self-scanners additional questions measuredperceptions of speed control reliability ease of use and enjoyment related to
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
61
number of US consumers who have tried self-scanning checkouts increasedfrom 6 percent in 1999 to 16 percent in 2001 (McDonald 2002) this increaseis not a huge jump and is below industry expectations Target for exampleis refusing to jump on the bandwagon of self-scanning (even though itssupercenters sell groceries) based on a firm belief that customers value thehuman touch at checkouts (Grant 2001)
In fact early tests have shown mixed results as some shoppers seem willingto try the self-scanners and others studiously ignore them (Discount StoreNews 1998a) Feedback from customers suggests that some shoppers like theshorter lines and privacy (Chain Store Age 2002) but others find the systemsdifficult to use and feel uncomfortable with the machines screaminginstructions at them (Wisely 2002) As stationary self-scanners can cost asmuch as $90000 (Grant 2001) before investing money in this particulartechnology-based self-service option on a large scale retailers need todetermine its future potential through systematic in-depth research onconsumer reasons for using or avoiding self-scanning checkouts
It is our objective to conduct research that provides the needed answers forthis pressing practical issue not only in the supermarket industry but forretailing in general In addition the results should be useful for understandingconsumer evaluation and use of other technology-based self-service optionsand thus serve to advance theory in the services marketing field
The only academic research on consumer perceptions of self-scanning isa study by Anselmsson (2001) He examines determinants of perceivedservice quality for grocery and library self-scanning in Sweden andindicates what is important to consumers in evaluating this form of servicedelivery His research includes attributes of technology-based self-serviceas well as consumer characteristics We build on Anselmssonrsquos research in anumber of ways The grocery store used as an empirical setting in hisstudy only offers self-scanning checkouts so that consumers do not have achoice as to service delivery options We broaden the investigation toinclude a choice situation and to probe consumer reasons for both using andavoiding the grocery self-scanning checkout Anselmssonrsquos study includesqualitative research which is used as a guide for his quantitative studyWe use a different approach in that we base our quantitative study onpast theory and simultaneously conduct a qualitative study toallow comparison of the efficacy of different research methods The data inAnselmssonrsquos study were collected through mail surveys Our interviewsare conducted in the field to draw on the immediacy of the setting toinvoke more relevant responses Finally we include possible situationalinfluences on the use of self-scanners which were not considered inAnselmssonrsquos study
Past research on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1996 Meuteret al 2000) has found that perceived attributes of the technology and consumerpreferences regarding interaction with the employee play a role in whether or
IJSIM141
62
not consumers will use such options The methods used to study technology-based self-service have included rigorous multivariate analysis of survey dataand critical incident techniques
This study uses a combination of research methods to determine the factorsthat influence consumers to use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Surveymethodology and quantitative analysis are used to examine the relevance offactors found to be important in past research on technology-based self-serviceIn addition tightly structured interviews and detailed content analysis are usedto extract factors that are important to consumers in using or avoiding the self-scanning checkout The comparison of results from different research methodshas interesting implications for future research methodology in servicesmarketing
The factors investigated encompass perceived attributes of the self-scanners situational influences and consumer differences in terms of relatedbehaviors and demographics The study provides meaningful strategicimplications for retailers as well as advances theory in services marketing thatcan be applied to a host of other service industries where technology-basedself-service options are offered or being considered
Conceptual frameworkToday consumers can choose between a variety of technological options toperform services for themselves at the same time companies can employtechnology at various stages in the service delivery process to improve thequality and productivity of their service offering (Blumberg 1994 Quinn1996) Providing these technological innovations for self-service is challengingthe notion that provider-client interaction is an essential feature of servicedelivery (Prendergast and Marr 1994) and is raising a host of significantresearch issues that need to be investigated (Dabholkar 2000 Lovelock 1995Meuter and Bitner 1998)
In implementing technology-based self-service many service firms hope tooffer better service to consumers But what do consumers see as theconstituents of better service Dabholkar (1996) proposed that speed controlreliability ease of use and enjoyment are all important attributes to consumersin evaluating and using technology-based self-service She found ease of usecontrol and enjoyment to be strong determinants of perceived service qualityin her study on touch screen ordering in fast food restaurants Although speedwas not found to be significant its effect may have been masked by theinclusion of waiting time in her study Similarly the effect of reliability mayhave been masked by its high correlation to control In fact Dabholkarrsquos(1994b) earlier research found performance encompassing reliability andaccuracy to be an important determinant of evaluation and use of technology-based self-service
Other researchers also support these five attributes Studies have foundspeed to be an important determinant of preference for self-service in general
Consumermotivation and
behavior
63
(Bateson 1985) and self-scanning in particular (Anselmsson 2001) Similarlyresearch on self-service (Bateson 1985) and on-line shopping (Hoffman andNovak 1996) shows that consumers perceive increased control in using suchoptions and that it positively affects their evaluation In a discussion onautomated self-service Evans and Brown (1988) suggest that reliability of thetechnology plays a critical part in consumer acceptance of such service optionsFinally studies on the adoption of computer technology (Davis et al 19891992) preference for self-scanning (Anselmsson 2001) and evaluation ofon-line shopping (Childers et al 2001) show that ease of use and enjoyment areimportant aspects for using such options
Consumers who regularly use self-scanning are likely to think all of theseattributes important They would view self-scanners as performing well onthese attributes and this would guide their preference and use of the optionBased on the literature we therefore propose the following hypothesis relatedto attributes of technology-based self-service
H1 Compared to those who do not plan to use it regularly consumers whoplan to use self-scanning regularly will
(a) perceive it as faster
(b) perceive it as offering greater control
(c) perceive it as more reliable
(d) perceive it as easier to use
(e) perceive it as more enjoyable
(f ) prefer it to the traditional checkout
But what are the attributes important to those who prefer the traditionalcheckout Are they concerned about speed control and so on and believe thetraditional checkout performs better on these attributes or do they have otherreasons to avoid the self-scanning checkout
Anselmsson (2001) found that only 25 percent of the respondents thoughtself-scanning was faster than employees scanning the purchases It is possiblethat only those who prefer self-scanning will view it as faster whereas thosewho prefer the traditional checkout will perceive self-scanning as slower Inaddition if the technology is cumbersome or complex or if the consumer is nottechnologically proficient the self-scanning checkout could actually increasethe service delivery time On the other hand both groups may view the self-scanning checkout as faster but the second group may have other reasons forchoosing the traditional checkout such as the human interaction involved
The same type of possibilities exist for the other attributes For exampleconsumers may see self-scanning as reliable but still prefer the traditionalcheckout in order to interact with an employee Or they may think thetraditional checkout is actually more reliable Consumers who prefer thetraditional checkout may feel greater control in using that option or control
IJSIM141
64
may not even be an important factor in their evaluation Given the lack oftheory on consumer avoidance of technology-based self-service based onspecific attributes of such options we plan to investigate possible reasons foravoidance through content analysis
Although speed is closely associated with service quality for many services(Sellers 1990) Ledingham (1984) suggests that efficiency and speed are moreimportant to consumers who use technology to serve themselves Otherconsumers however value human interaction above anything else in servicedelivery (Cowles and Crosby 1990 Dabholkar 1996 Prendergast and Marr1994) In contrast consumers who prefer technology-based self-service mayactually wish to avoid interaction with a service employee (Anselmsson 2001Dabholkar 1996 Meuter et al 2000) Thus consumer attitudes towardinteraction with service employees are likely to influence their use oftechnology-based self-service We hope to discover this relationship throughour content analysis and propose the following
H2a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will wishto avoid interaction with service employees
H2b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will value interaction with service employees
Greater familiarity with technology results in more favorable attitudes towardusing technology-based self-service options in general (Dabholkar 1992 1996)Further once consumers become used to a particular technology they morereadily adopt other technologies (Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Korgaonkar andMoschis 1987) Thus attitudes toward using technology in general (which arelinked to consumer familiarity with technology in general) have a directbearing on consumer attitudes and behavior toward a specific technology-based self-service As in the previous case we hope to discover this relationshipthrough our content analysis and propose the following
H3a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will havefavorable attitudes toward using technology in general
H3b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will have unfavorable attitudes toward using technology ingeneral
We also expect a carryover effect of consumer familiarity and preference forother technology-based self-service options to use of self-scanning Similarlywe expect a carryover effect of consumer avoidance for interacting withemployees in other shopping options to use of self-scanning Considering thetwo effects together we propose the following hypothesis
H4 Consumer who use self-scanning in grocery stores will prefer
(a) shopping from home to shopping at the store
(b) Internet shopping to telephone shopping
Consumermotivation and
behavior
65
(c) using touch-tone dialing to speaking to a person when telephoneshopping
(d) using a computer touch screen in the store to ordering verbally to anemployee in the store
(e) using an ATM to using a bank teller
In addition from the behavioral and motivational patterns that emerge forthese different forms of technology-based self-service options we propose fourhypotheses parallel to hypotheses H2a-b and H3a-b Based on the theorydiscussed earlier for hypotheses H2 and H3 we expect similar relationships forusing and avoiding these other technology-based self-service options as we dofor using and avoiding self-scanning Thus
H5a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will wish to avoid interactionwith service employees
H5b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will value interaction withservice employees
H6a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will have favorable attitudestoward using technology in general
H6b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will have unfavorableattitudes toward using technology in general
Past research (eg Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Prendergast and Marr 1994)found that younger better educated and affluent males were more likely to usetechnology-based self-service Some retailers have observed that olderconsumers do seem somewhat reluctant to use self-scanning (Discount StoreNews 1998a Grant 2001) possibly due to being accustomed to service byemployees in this context Yet Anselmsson (2001) found the opposite to be thecase It is unlikely today that demographic factors play a major role in theevaluation and use of in-store technology-based self-service Therefore wemeasure demographics to investigate these issues only in an exploratory senseThe one hypothesis we propose on demographics that is supported by theory isrelated to Internet access which may be viewed as a more relevant surrogatefor education and income in this context We have noted that as consumersbecome comfortable with technology in one service industry they are morewilling to try technologies in other service industries (Dickerson and Gentry1983 Korgaonkar and Moschis 1987) This suggests that consumers morelikely to use technology-based self-service options are the ones more familiarwith technology in general such as indicated by greater Internet access Thus
H7 Consumers who use self-scanning will have greater access to theInternet than consumers who avoid self-scanning
IJSIM141
66
As before we propose a parallel hypothesis for the other forms of technology-based self-service options explored in this study Thus
H8 Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service willhave greater access to the Internet than consumers who prefer thealternative traditional service option
Researchers suggest that situational factors can influence the use oftechnology-based self-service including Internet shopping (Bobbitt andDabholkar 2001 McMellon et al 1997) Empirical studies (Dabholkar 1996Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002) have substantiated the influence of situationalfactors such as waiting time and crowding on the use of technology-based self-service Based on the literature as well as on observation it is likely that avariety of situational factors such as the length of lines for alternative checkoutoptions time of day day of the week whether the store is crowded andwhether the consumer is in a hurry will influence evaluations of the self-scanning checkout We do not propose hypotheses for situational factorsbecause a rigorous test of these would necessitate an experimental researchdesign Instead we study them in an exploratory sense both by observingconditions at the time of the interview and also by specifically askingconsumers to name situations under which they would use self-scanningcheckouts
To sum the principal research objective for this study is to determine thereasons consumers use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Based on classicadoption literature (eg Rogers 1983 Gatignon and Robertson 1985) as well asthe literature on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1992 1994b1996 Meuter et al 2000 Prendergast and Marr 1994) we expect these reasonsto include ` innovation characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie attributes of self-scanners) as well as` personal characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie consumer attitudes toward interacting withemployees and toward using technology) Another research objective is tocompare use of self-scanning checkouts with consumer shopping preferencesfor other technology-based self-service options to uncover possible behavioraland motivational patterns We also plan to explore the influence ofdemographic factors on the use and avoidance of self-scanning checkouts andother technology-based self-service options Yet another research objective is toinvestigate the effect of situational factors on usage of self-scanning checkoutsFinally we plan to compare results from different research approaches to offerinsights on the approaches themselves All of our findings should haveimplications for managerial strategy as well as for future research on services
MethodologyData collection and sample selectionA large regional supermarket chain in the southeastern USA was selected forthe study A representative store that offered both self-scanning and traditionalcheckout was chosen for data collection Using tightly structured interviewsdata were collected from two groups of shoppers in the selected store One
Consumermotivation and
behavior
67
group consisted of consumers shopping at various locations throughout thestore The other group consisted of shoppers at the self-scannersUndergraduate honor students rigorously trained with practice interviewscollected the data They were monitored on-site and coached as needed bydoctoral students
Data collectors took up strategic spots in the store (including some at thecheckouts) at various times of the day and on various days of the week Everyfifth person encountered in the store by each data collector was approached andasked if they would be willing to answer a few questions In the second grouprespondents were actually in the process of checking out using the self-scanners The students identified themselves to potential respondents in bothgroups and explained that this was a university research project This resultedin an unusually high response rate of 8333 percent The students wereequipped with clipboards and made quick but comprehensive notes as theyconducted the interviews
Interview questionsFor respondents located throughout the store (ie the ` in-storersquorsquo group) a set ofclosed-ended questions measured awareness of the self-scanning checkout inthe store as well as past usage attitude and intentions for future use of the` self-scan optionrsquorsquo For respondents at the self-scanners awareness was evidentHence similar closed-ended questions were limited to past usage of self-scanning and intentions to use the self-scan option in the future
For the in-store group open-ended questions were included to capture whyrespondents liked or disliked the self-scanning checkout For respondents at theself-scanners preference for this option over the traditional checkout wasmeasured quantitatively as described later in this section For both groupsopen-ended questions were included to capture why the respondents planned touse or not use the self-scan option in the future
Both groups were also questioned about their shopping preferences fortechnology-based self-service versus the alternative traditional serviceprovided by an employee Specifically respondent preferences were measuredfor shopping from home vs shopping at the store Internet shopping vstelephone shopping using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a service employeeby telephone using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally toan employee in the store and using an ATM vs using a bank teller
Demographic questions on age gender education and measures of Internetaccess were included for both groups Situational factors including time of dayday of the week crowded conditions relative length of lines at alternativecheckouts and whether the consumer was in a hurry were noted by theinterviewer In addition respondents were asked under what situations theywould use the self-scan option
For the group at the self-scanners additional questions measuredperceptions of speed control reliability ease of use and enjoyment related to
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
62
not consumers will use such options The methods used to study technology-based self-service have included rigorous multivariate analysis of survey dataand critical incident techniques
This study uses a combination of research methods to determine the factorsthat influence consumers to use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Surveymethodology and quantitative analysis are used to examine the relevance offactors found to be important in past research on technology-based self-serviceIn addition tightly structured interviews and detailed content analysis are usedto extract factors that are important to consumers in using or avoiding the self-scanning checkout The comparison of results from different research methodshas interesting implications for future research methodology in servicesmarketing
The factors investigated encompass perceived attributes of the self-scanners situational influences and consumer differences in terms of relatedbehaviors and demographics The study provides meaningful strategicimplications for retailers as well as advances theory in services marketing thatcan be applied to a host of other service industries where technology-basedself-service options are offered or being considered
Conceptual frameworkToday consumers can choose between a variety of technological options toperform services for themselves at the same time companies can employtechnology at various stages in the service delivery process to improve thequality and productivity of their service offering (Blumberg 1994 Quinn1996) Providing these technological innovations for self-service is challengingthe notion that provider-client interaction is an essential feature of servicedelivery (Prendergast and Marr 1994) and is raising a host of significantresearch issues that need to be investigated (Dabholkar 2000 Lovelock 1995Meuter and Bitner 1998)
In implementing technology-based self-service many service firms hope tooffer better service to consumers But what do consumers see as theconstituents of better service Dabholkar (1996) proposed that speed controlreliability ease of use and enjoyment are all important attributes to consumersin evaluating and using technology-based self-service She found ease of usecontrol and enjoyment to be strong determinants of perceived service qualityin her study on touch screen ordering in fast food restaurants Although speedwas not found to be significant its effect may have been masked by theinclusion of waiting time in her study Similarly the effect of reliability mayhave been masked by its high correlation to control In fact Dabholkarrsquos(1994b) earlier research found performance encompassing reliability andaccuracy to be an important determinant of evaluation and use of technology-based self-service
Other researchers also support these five attributes Studies have foundspeed to be an important determinant of preference for self-service in general
Consumermotivation and
behavior
63
(Bateson 1985) and self-scanning in particular (Anselmsson 2001) Similarlyresearch on self-service (Bateson 1985) and on-line shopping (Hoffman andNovak 1996) shows that consumers perceive increased control in using suchoptions and that it positively affects their evaluation In a discussion onautomated self-service Evans and Brown (1988) suggest that reliability of thetechnology plays a critical part in consumer acceptance of such service optionsFinally studies on the adoption of computer technology (Davis et al 19891992) preference for self-scanning (Anselmsson 2001) and evaluation ofon-line shopping (Childers et al 2001) show that ease of use and enjoyment areimportant aspects for using such options
Consumers who regularly use self-scanning are likely to think all of theseattributes important They would view self-scanners as performing well onthese attributes and this would guide their preference and use of the optionBased on the literature we therefore propose the following hypothesis relatedto attributes of technology-based self-service
H1 Compared to those who do not plan to use it regularly consumers whoplan to use self-scanning regularly will
(a) perceive it as faster
(b) perceive it as offering greater control
(c) perceive it as more reliable
(d) perceive it as easier to use
(e) perceive it as more enjoyable
(f ) prefer it to the traditional checkout
But what are the attributes important to those who prefer the traditionalcheckout Are they concerned about speed control and so on and believe thetraditional checkout performs better on these attributes or do they have otherreasons to avoid the self-scanning checkout
Anselmsson (2001) found that only 25 percent of the respondents thoughtself-scanning was faster than employees scanning the purchases It is possiblethat only those who prefer self-scanning will view it as faster whereas thosewho prefer the traditional checkout will perceive self-scanning as slower Inaddition if the technology is cumbersome or complex or if the consumer is nottechnologically proficient the self-scanning checkout could actually increasethe service delivery time On the other hand both groups may view the self-scanning checkout as faster but the second group may have other reasons forchoosing the traditional checkout such as the human interaction involved
The same type of possibilities exist for the other attributes For exampleconsumers may see self-scanning as reliable but still prefer the traditionalcheckout in order to interact with an employee Or they may think thetraditional checkout is actually more reliable Consumers who prefer thetraditional checkout may feel greater control in using that option or control
IJSIM141
64
may not even be an important factor in their evaluation Given the lack oftheory on consumer avoidance of technology-based self-service based onspecific attributes of such options we plan to investigate possible reasons foravoidance through content analysis
Although speed is closely associated with service quality for many services(Sellers 1990) Ledingham (1984) suggests that efficiency and speed are moreimportant to consumers who use technology to serve themselves Otherconsumers however value human interaction above anything else in servicedelivery (Cowles and Crosby 1990 Dabholkar 1996 Prendergast and Marr1994) In contrast consumers who prefer technology-based self-service mayactually wish to avoid interaction with a service employee (Anselmsson 2001Dabholkar 1996 Meuter et al 2000) Thus consumer attitudes towardinteraction with service employees are likely to influence their use oftechnology-based self-service We hope to discover this relationship throughour content analysis and propose the following
H2a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will wishto avoid interaction with service employees
H2b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will value interaction with service employees
Greater familiarity with technology results in more favorable attitudes towardusing technology-based self-service options in general (Dabholkar 1992 1996)Further once consumers become used to a particular technology they morereadily adopt other technologies (Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Korgaonkar andMoschis 1987) Thus attitudes toward using technology in general (which arelinked to consumer familiarity with technology in general) have a directbearing on consumer attitudes and behavior toward a specific technology-based self-service As in the previous case we hope to discover this relationshipthrough our content analysis and propose the following
H3a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will havefavorable attitudes toward using technology in general
H3b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will have unfavorable attitudes toward using technology ingeneral
We also expect a carryover effect of consumer familiarity and preference forother technology-based self-service options to use of self-scanning Similarlywe expect a carryover effect of consumer avoidance for interacting withemployees in other shopping options to use of self-scanning Considering thetwo effects together we propose the following hypothesis
H4 Consumer who use self-scanning in grocery stores will prefer
(a) shopping from home to shopping at the store
(b) Internet shopping to telephone shopping
Consumermotivation and
behavior
65
(c) using touch-tone dialing to speaking to a person when telephoneshopping
(d) using a computer touch screen in the store to ordering verbally to anemployee in the store
(e) using an ATM to using a bank teller
In addition from the behavioral and motivational patterns that emerge forthese different forms of technology-based self-service options we propose fourhypotheses parallel to hypotheses H2a-b and H3a-b Based on the theorydiscussed earlier for hypotheses H2 and H3 we expect similar relationships forusing and avoiding these other technology-based self-service options as we dofor using and avoiding self-scanning Thus
H5a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will wish to avoid interactionwith service employees
H5b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will value interaction withservice employees
H6a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will have favorable attitudestoward using technology in general
H6b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will have unfavorableattitudes toward using technology in general
Past research (eg Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Prendergast and Marr 1994)found that younger better educated and affluent males were more likely to usetechnology-based self-service Some retailers have observed that olderconsumers do seem somewhat reluctant to use self-scanning (Discount StoreNews 1998a Grant 2001) possibly due to being accustomed to service byemployees in this context Yet Anselmsson (2001) found the opposite to be thecase It is unlikely today that demographic factors play a major role in theevaluation and use of in-store technology-based self-service Therefore wemeasure demographics to investigate these issues only in an exploratory senseThe one hypothesis we propose on demographics that is supported by theory isrelated to Internet access which may be viewed as a more relevant surrogatefor education and income in this context We have noted that as consumersbecome comfortable with technology in one service industry they are morewilling to try technologies in other service industries (Dickerson and Gentry1983 Korgaonkar and Moschis 1987) This suggests that consumers morelikely to use technology-based self-service options are the ones more familiarwith technology in general such as indicated by greater Internet access Thus
H7 Consumers who use self-scanning will have greater access to theInternet than consumers who avoid self-scanning
IJSIM141
66
As before we propose a parallel hypothesis for the other forms of technology-based self-service options explored in this study Thus
H8 Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service willhave greater access to the Internet than consumers who prefer thealternative traditional service option
Researchers suggest that situational factors can influence the use oftechnology-based self-service including Internet shopping (Bobbitt andDabholkar 2001 McMellon et al 1997) Empirical studies (Dabholkar 1996Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002) have substantiated the influence of situationalfactors such as waiting time and crowding on the use of technology-based self-service Based on the literature as well as on observation it is likely that avariety of situational factors such as the length of lines for alternative checkoutoptions time of day day of the week whether the store is crowded andwhether the consumer is in a hurry will influence evaluations of the self-scanning checkout We do not propose hypotheses for situational factorsbecause a rigorous test of these would necessitate an experimental researchdesign Instead we study them in an exploratory sense both by observingconditions at the time of the interview and also by specifically askingconsumers to name situations under which they would use self-scanningcheckouts
To sum the principal research objective for this study is to determine thereasons consumers use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Based on classicadoption literature (eg Rogers 1983 Gatignon and Robertson 1985) as well asthe literature on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1992 1994b1996 Meuter et al 2000 Prendergast and Marr 1994) we expect these reasonsto include ` innovation characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie attributes of self-scanners) as well as` personal characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie consumer attitudes toward interacting withemployees and toward using technology) Another research objective is tocompare use of self-scanning checkouts with consumer shopping preferencesfor other technology-based self-service options to uncover possible behavioraland motivational patterns We also plan to explore the influence ofdemographic factors on the use and avoidance of self-scanning checkouts andother technology-based self-service options Yet another research objective is toinvestigate the effect of situational factors on usage of self-scanning checkoutsFinally we plan to compare results from different research approaches to offerinsights on the approaches themselves All of our findings should haveimplications for managerial strategy as well as for future research on services
MethodologyData collection and sample selectionA large regional supermarket chain in the southeastern USA was selected forthe study A representative store that offered both self-scanning and traditionalcheckout was chosen for data collection Using tightly structured interviewsdata were collected from two groups of shoppers in the selected store One
Consumermotivation and
behavior
67
group consisted of consumers shopping at various locations throughout thestore The other group consisted of shoppers at the self-scannersUndergraduate honor students rigorously trained with practice interviewscollected the data They were monitored on-site and coached as needed bydoctoral students
Data collectors took up strategic spots in the store (including some at thecheckouts) at various times of the day and on various days of the week Everyfifth person encountered in the store by each data collector was approached andasked if they would be willing to answer a few questions In the second grouprespondents were actually in the process of checking out using the self-scanners The students identified themselves to potential respondents in bothgroups and explained that this was a university research project This resultedin an unusually high response rate of 8333 percent The students wereequipped with clipboards and made quick but comprehensive notes as theyconducted the interviews
Interview questionsFor respondents located throughout the store (ie the ` in-storersquorsquo group) a set ofclosed-ended questions measured awareness of the self-scanning checkout inthe store as well as past usage attitude and intentions for future use of the` self-scan optionrsquorsquo For respondents at the self-scanners awareness was evidentHence similar closed-ended questions were limited to past usage of self-scanning and intentions to use the self-scan option in the future
For the in-store group open-ended questions were included to capture whyrespondents liked or disliked the self-scanning checkout For respondents at theself-scanners preference for this option over the traditional checkout wasmeasured quantitatively as described later in this section For both groupsopen-ended questions were included to capture why the respondents planned touse or not use the self-scan option in the future
Both groups were also questioned about their shopping preferences fortechnology-based self-service versus the alternative traditional serviceprovided by an employee Specifically respondent preferences were measuredfor shopping from home vs shopping at the store Internet shopping vstelephone shopping using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a service employeeby telephone using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally toan employee in the store and using an ATM vs using a bank teller
Demographic questions on age gender education and measures of Internetaccess were included for both groups Situational factors including time of dayday of the week crowded conditions relative length of lines at alternativecheckouts and whether the consumer was in a hurry were noted by theinterviewer In addition respondents were asked under what situations theywould use the self-scan option
For the group at the self-scanners additional questions measuredperceptions of speed control reliability ease of use and enjoyment related to
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
63
(Bateson 1985) and self-scanning in particular (Anselmsson 2001) Similarlyresearch on self-service (Bateson 1985) and on-line shopping (Hoffman andNovak 1996) shows that consumers perceive increased control in using suchoptions and that it positively affects their evaluation In a discussion onautomated self-service Evans and Brown (1988) suggest that reliability of thetechnology plays a critical part in consumer acceptance of such service optionsFinally studies on the adoption of computer technology (Davis et al 19891992) preference for self-scanning (Anselmsson 2001) and evaluation ofon-line shopping (Childers et al 2001) show that ease of use and enjoyment areimportant aspects for using such options
Consumers who regularly use self-scanning are likely to think all of theseattributes important They would view self-scanners as performing well onthese attributes and this would guide their preference and use of the optionBased on the literature we therefore propose the following hypothesis relatedto attributes of technology-based self-service
H1 Compared to those who do not plan to use it regularly consumers whoplan to use self-scanning regularly will
(a) perceive it as faster
(b) perceive it as offering greater control
(c) perceive it as more reliable
(d) perceive it as easier to use
(e) perceive it as more enjoyable
(f ) prefer it to the traditional checkout
But what are the attributes important to those who prefer the traditionalcheckout Are they concerned about speed control and so on and believe thetraditional checkout performs better on these attributes or do they have otherreasons to avoid the self-scanning checkout
Anselmsson (2001) found that only 25 percent of the respondents thoughtself-scanning was faster than employees scanning the purchases It is possiblethat only those who prefer self-scanning will view it as faster whereas thosewho prefer the traditional checkout will perceive self-scanning as slower Inaddition if the technology is cumbersome or complex or if the consumer is nottechnologically proficient the self-scanning checkout could actually increasethe service delivery time On the other hand both groups may view the self-scanning checkout as faster but the second group may have other reasons forchoosing the traditional checkout such as the human interaction involved
The same type of possibilities exist for the other attributes For exampleconsumers may see self-scanning as reliable but still prefer the traditionalcheckout in order to interact with an employee Or they may think thetraditional checkout is actually more reliable Consumers who prefer thetraditional checkout may feel greater control in using that option or control
IJSIM141
64
may not even be an important factor in their evaluation Given the lack oftheory on consumer avoidance of technology-based self-service based onspecific attributes of such options we plan to investigate possible reasons foravoidance through content analysis
Although speed is closely associated with service quality for many services(Sellers 1990) Ledingham (1984) suggests that efficiency and speed are moreimportant to consumers who use technology to serve themselves Otherconsumers however value human interaction above anything else in servicedelivery (Cowles and Crosby 1990 Dabholkar 1996 Prendergast and Marr1994) In contrast consumers who prefer technology-based self-service mayactually wish to avoid interaction with a service employee (Anselmsson 2001Dabholkar 1996 Meuter et al 2000) Thus consumer attitudes towardinteraction with service employees are likely to influence their use oftechnology-based self-service We hope to discover this relationship throughour content analysis and propose the following
H2a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will wishto avoid interaction with service employees
H2b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will value interaction with service employees
Greater familiarity with technology results in more favorable attitudes towardusing technology-based self-service options in general (Dabholkar 1992 1996)Further once consumers become used to a particular technology they morereadily adopt other technologies (Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Korgaonkar andMoschis 1987) Thus attitudes toward using technology in general (which arelinked to consumer familiarity with technology in general) have a directbearing on consumer attitudes and behavior toward a specific technology-based self-service As in the previous case we hope to discover this relationshipthrough our content analysis and propose the following
H3a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will havefavorable attitudes toward using technology in general
H3b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will have unfavorable attitudes toward using technology ingeneral
We also expect a carryover effect of consumer familiarity and preference forother technology-based self-service options to use of self-scanning Similarlywe expect a carryover effect of consumer avoidance for interacting withemployees in other shopping options to use of self-scanning Considering thetwo effects together we propose the following hypothesis
H4 Consumer who use self-scanning in grocery stores will prefer
(a) shopping from home to shopping at the store
(b) Internet shopping to telephone shopping
Consumermotivation and
behavior
65
(c) using touch-tone dialing to speaking to a person when telephoneshopping
(d) using a computer touch screen in the store to ordering verbally to anemployee in the store
(e) using an ATM to using a bank teller
In addition from the behavioral and motivational patterns that emerge forthese different forms of technology-based self-service options we propose fourhypotheses parallel to hypotheses H2a-b and H3a-b Based on the theorydiscussed earlier for hypotheses H2 and H3 we expect similar relationships forusing and avoiding these other technology-based self-service options as we dofor using and avoiding self-scanning Thus
H5a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will wish to avoid interactionwith service employees
H5b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will value interaction withservice employees
H6a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will have favorable attitudestoward using technology in general
H6b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will have unfavorableattitudes toward using technology in general
Past research (eg Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Prendergast and Marr 1994)found that younger better educated and affluent males were more likely to usetechnology-based self-service Some retailers have observed that olderconsumers do seem somewhat reluctant to use self-scanning (Discount StoreNews 1998a Grant 2001) possibly due to being accustomed to service byemployees in this context Yet Anselmsson (2001) found the opposite to be thecase It is unlikely today that demographic factors play a major role in theevaluation and use of in-store technology-based self-service Therefore wemeasure demographics to investigate these issues only in an exploratory senseThe one hypothesis we propose on demographics that is supported by theory isrelated to Internet access which may be viewed as a more relevant surrogatefor education and income in this context We have noted that as consumersbecome comfortable with technology in one service industry they are morewilling to try technologies in other service industries (Dickerson and Gentry1983 Korgaonkar and Moschis 1987) This suggests that consumers morelikely to use technology-based self-service options are the ones more familiarwith technology in general such as indicated by greater Internet access Thus
H7 Consumers who use self-scanning will have greater access to theInternet than consumers who avoid self-scanning
IJSIM141
66
As before we propose a parallel hypothesis for the other forms of technology-based self-service options explored in this study Thus
H8 Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service willhave greater access to the Internet than consumers who prefer thealternative traditional service option
Researchers suggest that situational factors can influence the use oftechnology-based self-service including Internet shopping (Bobbitt andDabholkar 2001 McMellon et al 1997) Empirical studies (Dabholkar 1996Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002) have substantiated the influence of situationalfactors such as waiting time and crowding on the use of technology-based self-service Based on the literature as well as on observation it is likely that avariety of situational factors such as the length of lines for alternative checkoutoptions time of day day of the week whether the store is crowded andwhether the consumer is in a hurry will influence evaluations of the self-scanning checkout We do not propose hypotheses for situational factorsbecause a rigorous test of these would necessitate an experimental researchdesign Instead we study them in an exploratory sense both by observingconditions at the time of the interview and also by specifically askingconsumers to name situations under which they would use self-scanningcheckouts
To sum the principal research objective for this study is to determine thereasons consumers use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Based on classicadoption literature (eg Rogers 1983 Gatignon and Robertson 1985) as well asthe literature on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1992 1994b1996 Meuter et al 2000 Prendergast and Marr 1994) we expect these reasonsto include ` innovation characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie attributes of self-scanners) as well as` personal characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie consumer attitudes toward interacting withemployees and toward using technology) Another research objective is tocompare use of self-scanning checkouts with consumer shopping preferencesfor other technology-based self-service options to uncover possible behavioraland motivational patterns We also plan to explore the influence ofdemographic factors on the use and avoidance of self-scanning checkouts andother technology-based self-service options Yet another research objective is toinvestigate the effect of situational factors on usage of self-scanning checkoutsFinally we plan to compare results from different research approaches to offerinsights on the approaches themselves All of our findings should haveimplications for managerial strategy as well as for future research on services
MethodologyData collection and sample selectionA large regional supermarket chain in the southeastern USA was selected forthe study A representative store that offered both self-scanning and traditionalcheckout was chosen for data collection Using tightly structured interviewsdata were collected from two groups of shoppers in the selected store One
Consumermotivation and
behavior
67
group consisted of consumers shopping at various locations throughout thestore The other group consisted of shoppers at the self-scannersUndergraduate honor students rigorously trained with practice interviewscollected the data They were monitored on-site and coached as needed bydoctoral students
Data collectors took up strategic spots in the store (including some at thecheckouts) at various times of the day and on various days of the week Everyfifth person encountered in the store by each data collector was approached andasked if they would be willing to answer a few questions In the second grouprespondents were actually in the process of checking out using the self-scanners The students identified themselves to potential respondents in bothgroups and explained that this was a university research project This resultedin an unusually high response rate of 8333 percent The students wereequipped with clipboards and made quick but comprehensive notes as theyconducted the interviews
Interview questionsFor respondents located throughout the store (ie the ` in-storersquorsquo group) a set ofclosed-ended questions measured awareness of the self-scanning checkout inthe store as well as past usage attitude and intentions for future use of the` self-scan optionrsquorsquo For respondents at the self-scanners awareness was evidentHence similar closed-ended questions were limited to past usage of self-scanning and intentions to use the self-scan option in the future
For the in-store group open-ended questions were included to capture whyrespondents liked or disliked the self-scanning checkout For respondents at theself-scanners preference for this option over the traditional checkout wasmeasured quantitatively as described later in this section For both groupsopen-ended questions were included to capture why the respondents planned touse or not use the self-scan option in the future
Both groups were also questioned about their shopping preferences fortechnology-based self-service versus the alternative traditional serviceprovided by an employee Specifically respondent preferences were measuredfor shopping from home vs shopping at the store Internet shopping vstelephone shopping using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a service employeeby telephone using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally toan employee in the store and using an ATM vs using a bank teller
Demographic questions on age gender education and measures of Internetaccess were included for both groups Situational factors including time of dayday of the week crowded conditions relative length of lines at alternativecheckouts and whether the consumer was in a hurry were noted by theinterviewer In addition respondents were asked under what situations theywould use the self-scan option
For the group at the self-scanners additional questions measuredperceptions of speed control reliability ease of use and enjoyment related to
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
64
may not even be an important factor in their evaluation Given the lack oftheory on consumer avoidance of technology-based self-service based onspecific attributes of such options we plan to investigate possible reasons foravoidance through content analysis
Although speed is closely associated with service quality for many services(Sellers 1990) Ledingham (1984) suggests that efficiency and speed are moreimportant to consumers who use technology to serve themselves Otherconsumers however value human interaction above anything else in servicedelivery (Cowles and Crosby 1990 Dabholkar 1996 Prendergast and Marr1994) In contrast consumers who prefer technology-based self-service mayactually wish to avoid interaction with a service employee (Anselmsson 2001Dabholkar 1996 Meuter et al 2000) Thus consumer attitudes towardinteraction with service employees are likely to influence their use oftechnology-based self-service We hope to discover this relationship throughour content analysis and propose the following
H2a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will wishto avoid interaction with service employees
H2b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will value interaction with service employees
Greater familiarity with technology results in more favorable attitudes towardusing technology-based self-service options in general (Dabholkar 1992 1996)Further once consumers become used to a particular technology they morereadily adopt other technologies (Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Korgaonkar andMoschis 1987) Thus attitudes toward using technology in general (which arelinked to consumer familiarity with technology in general) have a directbearing on consumer attitudes and behavior toward a specific technology-based self-service As in the previous case we hope to discover this relationshipthrough our content analysis and propose the following
H3a Consumers who like self-scanning (and use or plan to use it) will havefavorable attitudes toward using technology in general
H3b Consumers who dislike self-scanning (and have not used it or plan notto use it) will have unfavorable attitudes toward using technology ingeneral
We also expect a carryover effect of consumer familiarity and preference forother technology-based self-service options to use of self-scanning Similarlywe expect a carryover effect of consumer avoidance for interacting withemployees in other shopping options to use of self-scanning Considering thetwo effects together we propose the following hypothesis
H4 Consumer who use self-scanning in grocery stores will prefer
(a) shopping from home to shopping at the store
(b) Internet shopping to telephone shopping
Consumermotivation and
behavior
65
(c) using touch-tone dialing to speaking to a person when telephoneshopping
(d) using a computer touch screen in the store to ordering verbally to anemployee in the store
(e) using an ATM to using a bank teller
In addition from the behavioral and motivational patterns that emerge forthese different forms of technology-based self-service options we propose fourhypotheses parallel to hypotheses H2a-b and H3a-b Based on the theorydiscussed earlier for hypotheses H2 and H3 we expect similar relationships forusing and avoiding these other technology-based self-service options as we dofor using and avoiding self-scanning Thus
H5a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will wish to avoid interactionwith service employees
H5b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will value interaction withservice employees
H6a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will have favorable attitudestoward using technology in general
H6b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will have unfavorableattitudes toward using technology in general
Past research (eg Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Prendergast and Marr 1994)found that younger better educated and affluent males were more likely to usetechnology-based self-service Some retailers have observed that olderconsumers do seem somewhat reluctant to use self-scanning (Discount StoreNews 1998a Grant 2001) possibly due to being accustomed to service byemployees in this context Yet Anselmsson (2001) found the opposite to be thecase It is unlikely today that demographic factors play a major role in theevaluation and use of in-store technology-based self-service Therefore wemeasure demographics to investigate these issues only in an exploratory senseThe one hypothesis we propose on demographics that is supported by theory isrelated to Internet access which may be viewed as a more relevant surrogatefor education and income in this context We have noted that as consumersbecome comfortable with technology in one service industry they are morewilling to try technologies in other service industries (Dickerson and Gentry1983 Korgaonkar and Moschis 1987) This suggests that consumers morelikely to use technology-based self-service options are the ones more familiarwith technology in general such as indicated by greater Internet access Thus
H7 Consumers who use self-scanning will have greater access to theInternet than consumers who avoid self-scanning
IJSIM141
66
As before we propose a parallel hypothesis for the other forms of technology-based self-service options explored in this study Thus
H8 Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service willhave greater access to the Internet than consumers who prefer thealternative traditional service option
Researchers suggest that situational factors can influence the use oftechnology-based self-service including Internet shopping (Bobbitt andDabholkar 2001 McMellon et al 1997) Empirical studies (Dabholkar 1996Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002) have substantiated the influence of situationalfactors such as waiting time and crowding on the use of technology-based self-service Based on the literature as well as on observation it is likely that avariety of situational factors such as the length of lines for alternative checkoutoptions time of day day of the week whether the store is crowded andwhether the consumer is in a hurry will influence evaluations of the self-scanning checkout We do not propose hypotheses for situational factorsbecause a rigorous test of these would necessitate an experimental researchdesign Instead we study them in an exploratory sense both by observingconditions at the time of the interview and also by specifically askingconsumers to name situations under which they would use self-scanningcheckouts
To sum the principal research objective for this study is to determine thereasons consumers use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Based on classicadoption literature (eg Rogers 1983 Gatignon and Robertson 1985) as well asthe literature on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1992 1994b1996 Meuter et al 2000 Prendergast and Marr 1994) we expect these reasonsto include ` innovation characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie attributes of self-scanners) as well as` personal characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie consumer attitudes toward interacting withemployees and toward using technology) Another research objective is tocompare use of self-scanning checkouts with consumer shopping preferencesfor other technology-based self-service options to uncover possible behavioraland motivational patterns We also plan to explore the influence ofdemographic factors on the use and avoidance of self-scanning checkouts andother technology-based self-service options Yet another research objective is toinvestigate the effect of situational factors on usage of self-scanning checkoutsFinally we plan to compare results from different research approaches to offerinsights on the approaches themselves All of our findings should haveimplications for managerial strategy as well as for future research on services
MethodologyData collection and sample selectionA large regional supermarket chain in the southeastern USA was selected forthe study A representative store that offered both self-scanning and traditionalcheckout was chosen for data collection Using tightly structured interviewsdata were collected from two groups of shoppers in the selected store One
Consumermotivation and
behavior
67
group consisted of consumers shopping at various locations throughout thestore The other group consisted of shoppers at the self-scannersUndergraduate honor students rigorously trained with practice interviewscollected the data They were monitored on-site and coached as needed bydoctoral students
Data collectors took up strategic spots in the store (including some at thecheckouts) at various times of the day and on various days of the week Everyfifth person encountered in the store by each data collector was approached andasked if they would be willing to answer a few questions In the second grouprespondents were actually in the process of checking out using the self-scanners The students identified themselves to potential respondents in bothgroups and explained that this was a university research project This resultedin an unusually high response rate of 8333 percent The students wereequipped with clipboards and made quick but comprehensive notes as theyconducted the interviews
Interview questionsFor respondents located throughout the store (ie the ` in-storersquorsquo group) a set ofclosed-ended questions measured awareness of the self-scanning checkout inthe store as well as past usage attitude and intentions for future use of the` self-scan optionrsquorsquo For respondents at the self-scanners awareness was evidentHence similar closed-ended questions were limited to past usage of self-scanning and intentions to use the self-scan option in the future
For the in-store group open-ended questions were included to capture whyrespondents liked or disliked the self-scanning checkout For respondents at theself-scanners preference for this option over the traditional checkout wasmeasured quantitatively as described later in this section For both groupsopen-ended questions were included to capture why the respondents planned touse or not use the self-scan option in the future
Both groups were also questioned about their shopping preferences fortechnology-based self-service versus the alternative traditional serviceprovided by an employee Specifically respondent preferences were measuredfor shopping from home vs shopping at the store Internet shopping vstelephone shopping using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a service employeeby telephone using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally toan employee in the store and using an ATM vs using a bank teller
Demographic questions on age gender education and measures of Internetaccess were included for both groups Situational factors including time of dayday of the week crowded conditions relative length of lines at alternativecheckouts and whether the consumer was in a hurry were noted by theinterviewer In addition respondents were asked under what situations theywould use the self-scan option
For the group at the self-scanners additional questions measuredperceptions of speed control reliability ease of use and enjoyment related to
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
65
(c) using touch-tone dialing to speaking to a person when telephoneshopping
(d) using a computer touch screen in the store to ordering verbally to anemployee in the store
(e) using an ATM to using a bank teller
In addition from the behavioral and motivational patterns that emerge forthese different forms of technology-based self-service options we propose fourhypotheses parallel to hypotheses H2a-b and H3a-b Based on the theorydiscussed earlier for hypotheses H2 and H3 we expect similar relationships forusing and avoiding these other technology-based self-service options as we dofor using and avoiding self-scanning Thus
H5a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will wish to avoid interactionwith service employees
H5b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will value interaction withservice employees
H6a Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service to itsalternative traditional service option will have favorable attitudestoward using technology in general
H6b Consumers who prefer the alternative traditional service option to aparticular technology-based self-service will have unfavorableattitudes toward using technology in general
Past research (eg Dickerson and Gentry 1983 Prendergast and Marr 1994)found that younger better educated and affluent males were more likely to usetechnology-based self-service Some retailers have observed that olderconsumers do seem somewhat reluctant to use self-scanning (Discount StoreNews 1998a Grant 2001) possibly due to being accustomed to service byemployees in this context Yet Anselmsson (2001) found the opposite to be thecase It is unlikely today that demographic factors play a major role in theevaluation and use of in-store technology-based self-service Therefore wemeasure demographics to investigate these issues only in an exploratory senseThe one hypothesis we propose on demographics that is supported by theory isrelated to Internet access which may be viewed as a more relevant surrogatefor education and income in this context We have noted that as consumersbecome comfortable with technology in one service industry they are morewilling to try technologies in other service industries (Dickerson and Gentry1983 Korgaonkar and Moschis 1987) This suggests that consumers morelikely to use technology-based self-service options are the ones more familiarwith technology in general such as indicated by greater Internet access Thus
H7 Consumers who use self-scanning will have greater access to theInternet than consumers who avoid self-scanning
IJSIM141
66
As before we propose a parallel hypothesis for the other forms of technology-based self-service options explored in this study Thus
H8 Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service willhave greater access to the Internet than consumers who prefer thealternative traditional service option
Researchers suggest that situational factors can influence the use oftechnology-based self-service including Internet shopping (Bobbitt andDabholkar 2001 McMellon et al 1997) Empirical studies (Dabholkar 1996Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002) have substantiated the influence of situationalfactors such as waiting time and crowding on the use of technology-based self-service Based on the literature as well as on observation it is likely that avariety of situational factors such as the length of lines for alternative checkoutoptions time of day day of the week whether the store is crowded andwhether the consumer is in a hurry will influence evaluations of the self-scanning checkout We do not propose hypotheses for situational factorsbecause a rigorous test of these would necessitate an experimental researchdesign Instead we study them in an exploratory sense both by observingconditions at the time of the interview and also by specifically askingconsumers to name situations under which they would use self-scanningcheckouts
To sum the principal research objective for this study is to determine thereasons consumers use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Based on classicadoption literature (eg Rogers 1983 Gatignon and Robertson 1985) as well asthe literature on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1992 1994b1996 Meuter et al 2000 Prendergast and Marr 1994) we expect these reasonsto include ` innovation characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie attributes of self-scanners) as well as` personal characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie consumer attitudes toward interacting withemployees and toward using technology) Another research objective is tocompare use of self-scanning checkouts with consumer shopping preferencesfor other technology-based self-service options to uncover possible behavioraland motivational patterns We also plan to explore the influence ofdemographic factors on the use and avoidance of self-scanning checkouts andother technology-based self-service options Yet another research objective is toinvestigate the effect of situational factors on usage of self-scanning checkoutsFinally we plan to compare results from different research approaches to offerinsights on the approaches themselves All of our findings should haveimplications for managerial strategy as well as for future research on services
MethodologyData collection and sample selectionA large regional supermarket chain in the southeastern USA was selected forthe study A representative store that offered both self-scanning and traditionalcheckout was chosen for data collection Using tightly structured interviewsdata were collected from two groups of shoppers in the selected store One
Consumermotivation and
behavior
67
group consisted of consumers shopping at various locations throughout thestore The other group consisted of shoppers at the self-scannersUndergraduate honor students rigorously trained with practice interviewscollected the data They were monitored on-site and coached as needed bydoctoral students
Data collectors took up strategic spots in the store (including some at thecheckouts) at various times of the day and on various days of the week Everyfifth person encountered in the store by each data collector was approached andasked if they would be willing to answer a few questions In the second grouprespondents were actually in the process of checking out using the self-scanners The students identified themselves to potential respondents in bothgroups and explained that this was a university research project This resultedin an unusually high response rate of 8333 percent The students wereequipped with clipboards and made quick but comprehensive notes as theyconducted the interviews
Interview questionsFor respondents located throughout the store (ie the ` in-storersquorsquo group) a set ofclosed-ended questions measured awareness of the self-scanning checkout inthe store as well as past usage attitude and intentions for future use of the` self-scan optionrsquorsquo For respondents at the self-scanners awareness was evidentHence similar closed-ended questions were limited to past usage of self-scanning and intentions to use the self-scan option in the future
For the in-store group open-ended questions were included to capture whyrespondents liked or disliked the self-scanning checkout For respondents at theself-scanners preference for this option over the traditional checkout wasmeasured quantitatively as described later in this section For both groupsopen-ended questions were included to capture why the respondents planned touse or not use the self-scan option in the future
Both groups were also questioned about their shopping preferences fortechnology-based self-service versus the alternative traditional serviceprovided by an employee Specifically respondent preferences were measuredfor shopping from home vs shopping at the store Internet shopping vstelephone shopping using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a service employeeby telephone using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally toan employee in the store and using an ATM vs using a bank teller
Demographic questions on age gender education and measures of Internetaccess were included for both groups Situational factors including time of dayday of the week crowded conditions relative length of lines at alternativecheckouts and whether the consumer was in a hurry were noted by theinterviewer In addition respondents were asked under what situations theywould use the self-scan option
For the group at the self-scanners additional questions measuredperceptions of speed control reliability ease of use and enjoyment related to
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
66
As before we propose a parallel hypothesis for the other forms of technology-based self-service options explored in this study Thus
H8 Consumers who prefer a particular technology-based self-service willhave greater access to the Internet than consumers who prefer thealternative traditional service option
Researchers suggest that situational factors can influence the use oftechnology-based self-service including Internet shopping (Bobbitt andDabholkar 2001 McMellon et al 1997) Empirical studies (Dabholkar 1996Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002) have substantiated the influence of situationalfactors such as waiting time and crowding on the use of technology-based self-service Based on the literature as well as on observation it is likely that avariety of situational factors such as the length of lines for alternative checkoutoptions time of day day of the week whether the store is crowded andwhether the consumer is in a hurry will influence evaluations of the self-scanning checkout We do not propose hypotheses for situational factorsbecause a rigorous test of these would necessitate an experimental researchdesign Instead we study them in an exploratory sense both by observingconditions at the time of the interview and also by specifically askingconsumers to name situations under which they would use self-scanningcheckouts
To sum the principal research objective for this study is to determine thereasons consumers use (or avoid) self-scanning checkouts Based on classicadoption literature (eg Rogers 1983 Gatignon and Robertson 1985) as well asthe literature on technology-based self-service (eg Dabholkar 1992 1994b1996 Meuter et al 2000 Prendergast and Marr 1994) we expect these reasonsto include ` innovation characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie attributes of self-scanners) as well as` personal characteristicsrsquorsquo (ie consumer attitudes toward interacting withemployees and toward using technology) Another research objective is tocompare use of self-scanning checkouts with consumer shopping preferencesfor other technology-based self-service options to uncover possible behavioraland motivational patterns We also plan to explore the influence ofdemographic factors on the use and avoidance of self-scanning checkouts andother technology-based self-service options Yet another research objective is toinvestigate the effect of situational factors on usage of self-scanning checkoutsFinally we plan to compare results from different research approaches to offerinsights on the approaches themselves All of our findings should haveimplications for managerial strategy as well as for future research on services
MethodologyData collection and sample selectionA large regional supermarket chain in the southeastern USA was selected forthe study A representative store that offered both self-scanning and traditionalcheckout was chosen for data collection Using tightly structured interviewsdata were collected from two groups of shoppers in the selected store One
Consumermotivation and
behavior
67
group consisted of consumers shopping at various locations throughout thestore The other group consisted of shoppers at the self-scannersUndergraduate honor students rigorously trained with practice interviewscollected the data They were monitored on-site and coached as needed bydoctoral students
Data collectors took up strategic spots in the store (including some at thecheckouts) at various times of the day and on various days of the week Everyfifth person encountered in the store by each data collector was approached andasked if they would be willing to answer a few questions In the second grouprespondents were actually in the process of checking out using the self-scanners The students identified themselves to potential respondents in bothgroups and explained that this was a university research project This resultedin an unusually high response rate of 8333 percent The students wereequipped with clipboards and made quick but comprehensive notes as theyconducted the interviews
Interview questionsFor respondents located throughout the store (ie the ` in-storersquorsquo group) a set ofclosed-ended questions measured awareness of the self-scanning checkout inthe store as well as past usage attitude and intentions for future use of the` self-scan optionrsquorsquo For respondents at the self-scanners awareness was evidentHence similar closed-ended questions were limited to past usage of self-scanning and intentions to use the self-scan option in the future
For the in-store group open-ended questions were included to capture whyrespondents liked or disliked the self-scanning checkout For respondents at theself-scanners preference for this option over the traditional checkout wasmeasured quantitatively as described later in this section For both groupsopen-ended questions were included to capture why the respondents planned touse or not use the self-scan option in the future
Both groups were also questioned about their shopping preferences fortechnology-based self-service versus the alternative traditional serviceprovided by an employee Specifically respondent preferences were measuredfor shopping from home vs shopping at the store Internet shopping vstelephone shopping using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a service employeeby telephone using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally toan employee in the store and using an ATM vs using a bank teller
Demographic questions on age gender education and measures of Internetaccess were included for both groups Situational factors including time of dayday of the week crowded conditions relative length of lines at alternativecheckouts and whether the consumer was in a hurry were noted by theinterviewer In addition respondents were asked under what situations theywould use the self-scan option
For the group at the self-scanners additional questions measuredperceptions of speed control reliability ease of use and enjoyment related to
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
67
group consisted of consumers shopping at various locations throughout thestore The other group consisted of shoppers at the self-scannersUndergraduate honor students rigorously trained with practice interviewscollected the data They were monitored on-site and coached as needed bydoctoral students
Data collectors took up strategic spots in the store (including some at thecheckouts) at various times of the day and on various days of the week Everyfifth person encountered in the store by each data collector was approached andasked if they would be willing to answer a few questions In the second grouprespondents were actually in the process of checking out using the self-scanners The students identified themselves to potential respondents in bothgroups and explained that this was a university research project This resultedin an unusually high response rate of 8333 percent The students wereequipped with clipboards and made quick but comprehensive notes as theyconducted the interviews
Interview questionsFor respondents located throughout the store (ie the ` in-storersquorsquo group) a set ofclosed-ended questions measured awareness of the self-scanning checkout inthe store as well as past usage attitude and intentions for future use of the` self-scan optionrsquorsquo For respondents at the self-scanners awareness was evidentHence similar closed-ended questions were limited to past usage of self-scanning and intentions to use the self-scan option in the future
For the in-store group open-ended questions were included to capture whyrespondents liked or disliked the self-scanning checkout For respondents at theself-scanners preference for this option over the traditional checkout wasmeasured quantitatively as described later in this section For both groupsopen-ended questions were included to capture why the respondents planned touse or not use the self-scan option in the future
Both groups were also questioned about their shopping preferences fortechnology-based self-service versus the alternative traditional serviceprovided by an employee Specifically respondent preferences were measuredfor shopping from home vs shopping at the store Internet shopping vstelephone shopping using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a service employeeby telephone using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally toan employee in the store and using an ATM vs using a bank teller
Demographic questions on age gender education and measures of Internetaccess were included for both groups Situational factors including time of dayday of the week crowded conditions relative length of lines at alternativecheckouts and whether the consumer was in a hurry were noted by theinterviewer In addition respondents were asked under what situations theywould use the self-scan option
For the group at the self-scanners additional questions measuredperceptions of speed control reliability ease of use and enjoyment related to
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
68
the self-scanning checkout as well as their overall preference for the self-scanoption over the traditional checkout Each construct was measured using twoseven-point Likert items the phrasing was adapted from Dabholkarrsquos (1996)study for the self-scanning context (see Appendix)
Quantitative analysisConfirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests were performed on the itemsused to measure perceptions and preference related to the self-scanningcheckout T-tests (and ANOVAs) were conducted to determine differences inthese perceptions and preferences for situational and demographic differencesas well as for different groups of respondents Frequencies were computed andnonparametric statistical tests conducted to determine differences between thetwo major respondent groups (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) in terms ofdemographic factors Similar tests were conducted to determine differences inshopping preferences between these two groups The tests were repeated forcertain relevant sub-groups of respondents to look for possible differences
Content analysisThe qualitative data collected from both groups were recorded in detail Tworesearchers independently identified categories for all the responses recordedthen discussed these categories to determine agreement on labeling Inter-judgereliability can be ascertained by a number of possible measures Initialagreement between the two researchers was 926 percent Differences inopinion regarding the categories were discussed so that agreement on labelsrose to 97 percent A third researcher examined the agreed-upon categories andafter further discussion 74 percent of these were relabeled The thirdresearcher also reconciled the differences for the categories (3 percent) whereagreement had not been reached Final agreement on labeling was 100 percent
ResultsSample breakdown by research designThe sample of consumers shopping throughout the store included 101respondents and the sample of consumers at the self-scanners included 49respondents A breakdown for the 101 in-store respondents in relation toawareness past use and attitudes related to the self-scan option as well astheir intentions to use this option in the future is shown in Figure 1 Abreakdown for the 49 respondents at the self-scanners in relation to past useand future intentions is shown in Figure 2
Results of quantitative analysisRespondents at the self-scanners had answered a survey to measure theirperceptions and preference for the self-scan option (see Appendix)Confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom 1993) was run on all theitems capturing perceptions (speed control reliability ease of use and
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
69
enjoyment) of the self-scan option and preference for the same over thetraditional checkout The results strongly supported the six factor structurewith a chi-squared value of 7158 with df = 39 RMSR = 003 NNFI = 092 andCFI = 095 Cronbachrsquos alpha values for these constructs were 097 for speed092 for control 087 for reliability 084 for ease of use 086 for enjoyment and086 for preference for the self-scan option
The sample (n = 49) was too small to run structural equations andregression analysis did not discriminate sufficiently among the constructsSeparate simple regressions showed all factors (perceptions) to be significantdeterminants of preference but multiple regression showed only ease of use tobe significant (b = 085 p lt 0001) masking the effect of other factors
Figure 2Distribution of survey
respondents atself-scanners
Figure 1Distribution of in-store
survey respondents
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
70
In any case the research question of interest was whether consumers whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly had different perceptions of it from thosewho did not plan to use it regularly and whether these consumers indeedpreferred the option to the traditional checkout (H1) It was expected that thesample would be somewhat equally divided between these two groups Instead39 respondents planned to use self-scanning regularly four did not plan to useit and six respondents indicated they might use it depending on the situation(see Figure 2) T-tests were conducted to compare perceptions of the 39 whoplanned to use self-scanning regularly versus the ten who did not plan to use itor would only use it under certain situations
Despite the one small group (n = 10) the t-tests worked well Consumerswho planned to use self-scanning regularly viewed it as offering greatercontrol (t = 212 p lt 005) more reliable (t = 205 p lt 005) easier to use(t = 245 p lt 005) and offering greater enjoyment (t = 341 p lt 001) thanthose who did not plan to use this option regularly Thus hypotheses H1bH1c H1d and H1e were supported Only speed was not significantlydifferent for the two groups thus failing to support hypothesis H1aThis result does not however indicate that speed was not important tothese groups The mean value for speed was 567 (on a scale of 1-7)higher than the means for all the other perceptions This suggeststhat irrespective of whether consumers planned to use self-scanningregularly they saw it as a fast option Finally a t-test confirmed thatconsumers who planned to use self-scanning regularly showed greateroverall preference for the option over the traditional checkout (t = 312p lt 005) than the group that did not plan to use this option regularly thussupporting hypothesis H1f
Although hypothesis H2 was to be tested with content analysis anonparametric test statistic (Mann-Whitney) also showed some support forH2 as follows Shopping preferences of consumers within the in-store groupwere compared between those who had used the self-scan and those whohad not used the self-scan or were not aware of it The only significantdifference was that the first group preferred using touch screen ordering ina store to ordering verbally to an employee in a store (z = 193 p lt 0054) Itappears that consumers who had used the self-scan do want to avoid contactwith employees thus offering support for hypothesis H2a The findingalso suggests simultaneously that consumers who had not used the self-scan prefer interacting with an employee thus offering support forhypothesis H2b
Table I shows the shopping preferences for in-store respondents (n = 101)and for respondents at the self-scanners (n = 49) A series of Mann-Whitneytests showed no differences between the two groups for preferences related toshopping from home vs shopping at the store using touch-tone dialing vsspeaking to a person when telephone shopping and using a computer touch
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
71
screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in a store (see categories 1 3 and 4in Table I)
However compared to in-store respondents respondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 288p lt 001) and (2) using ATMs to using bank tellers (z = 275 p lt 001) (seecategories 2 and 5 in Table I) Thus hypotheses H4a H4c and H4d were notsupported but hypotheses H4b and H4e were supported Given that thein-store respondents included those who had used and liked the self-scanthis difference across the two groups for hypotheses H4b and H4e is evenmore striking
Table II shows the demographic profiles of the two major groups ofrespondents (ie in-store and at the self-scanners) Within the second groupie respondents at the self-scanners t-tests were conducted for gender andoverall Internet access (yesno) and ANOVAs were run for age educationand specific Internet access (homeworkboth) No differences were found inperceptions of attributes or in overall preference for the self-scanningcheckout across any of the basic demographic categories or for Internetaccess
To compare differences across the two groups of respondents withoutreference to attributes or preference a nonparametric test statistic was used
Table IShopping preferences
of respondents
In-storen = 101
At self-scannersn = 49
Comparison of shopping methods n Percent n Percent
1 Shopping from homeShopping at the store
1556
2179
730
1981
Total 71 100 37 100
2 Internet shopping from homeTelephone shopping from home
1852
2573
1916
5143
Total 70 98 35 94
3 Using touchtone dialing when telephone shoppingSpeaking to a person when telephone shopping
761
1086
629
1678
Total 68 96 35 94
4 Using a computer touch screen in a retail storeOrdering verbally to an employee in a retail store
1781
1780
1434
2969
Total 98 97 48 98
5 Using an ATM for banking transactionsUsing a bank teller for banking transactions
4951
4950
3512
7124
Total 100 99 47 95
Notes 1 A screening question was used to determine the people who had shopped fromhome before Only these people (71 and 37 in the two groups respectively) answered the firstthree questions (The entire samples answered questions 4 and 5) 2 Percentages may notadd up to 100 per cent due to some non-response on questions
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
72
given the independence of the samples The Mann-Whitney test showed nosignificant differences for age education and gender across these twogroups This is a good finding in that it verifies that the demographicprofiles of the randomly selected respondents in the two major groups aresimilar
Other sub-groups within the in-store group were also compared for possibledemographic differences using the same procedure ie the Mann-Whitney testNo difference in demographic profiles was found between respondents who hadused the self-scan and those who had not used it or who were not aware of itNor were any demographic differences found between respondents who hadliked the self-scan and those who had disliked it These findings show
Table IIDemographic profiles
In-store At self-scannersDemographics n Percent n Percent
Age18-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and over
29182215107
2871782181499969
16174552
32734782
10210241
Total 101 1000 49 1000
GenderMaleFemale
3764
366634
2128
429571
Total 101 1000 49 1000
EducationGrade schoolHigh schoolSome collegeUndergraduate degreeGraduate degreeMore than one graduate degree
1132831208
1012927730719879
22
1113155
4141
224265306102
Total 101 1000 48a 979
Overall Internet accessYesNo
7724
762238
445
898102
Total 101 1000 49 1000
Specific Internet accessb
HomeWorkBoth
231829
299234376
20204
45545591
Total 70c 909 44 1000
Notes a One person did not provide this information b this question was asked only tothose who had Internet access (ie 77 in the in-store group and 44 in the self-scan group)c seven people did not provide this information
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
73
that demographic factors do not influence use preference or avoidance ofself-scanning
Similarly when demographic profiles were compared for shoppingpreferences no differences were found for shopping from home vs shopping atthe store for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephoneshopping or for using a touch screen vs ordering verbally to an employee in thestore However those who preferred using ATMs to using bank tellers tendedto be younger (z = 341 p lt 0001) and those who preferred Internet shopping totelephone shopping also tended to be younger (z = 187 p lt 005) and were morelikely to be male (z = 264 p lt 001) supporting earlier research on these specificcontexts
As predicted Internet access across the two major groups of respondentswas significantly different Respondents at the self-scanners were more likelyto have Internet access than those who were interviewed in other areas of thestore The Mann-Whitney statistic was significant for overall Internet access(z = 197 p lt 005) and for specific Internet access (z = 297 p lt 001) Thushypothesis H7 is supported at two levels
There was no difference in Internet access across the same three earlier setsof shopping preferences that had shown no demographic differences inconsumer profiles However Internet access was higher for those who preferredusing ATMs to using tellers (z = 329 p lt 0001) and understandably for thosewho preferred Internet shopping to telephone shopping (z = 340 p lt 0001)thus partially supporting hypothesis H8
Finally t-tests were conducted for a variety of situational factorsweekday vs weekend morning vs evening longer vs shorter wait lines atthe self-scanning checkout whether the consumer was in a hurry or notand whether the store was crowded or not None of the first four situationalfactors changed perceptions of attributes or preference for the self-scanThe only situational factor that showed a difference was whether thestore was crowded A test for crowding showed that respondents usingthe self-scanning checkout under crowded conditions thought it wasfaster than those who were using it under normal conditions (t = 213p lt 005)
Results of content analysisPreference avoidance and situational use of self-scanning option Table IIIcompares reasons consumers like or plan to use the self-scan option amongthree groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 39) in-store respondentswho had used and liked this option (n = 29) and in-store respondents who hadnot used this option but were thinking of trying it (n = 18) It is seen that themost important reason that all these consumers would want to use the self-scanoption is that they perceive it as ` fastrsquorsquo This result offers additional support toexplain why the relevance of speed could not be differentiated across groups inthe earlier quantitative analysis (see H1a) The content analysis results suggest
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
74
Table IIIReasons for usingself-scan option
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
will
be
use
dre
gula
rly
(Res
pon
den
tsat
self-s
canner
s)n
=39
What
was
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
opti
on(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
29
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Fas
tN
ow
aiti
ng
Eas
yto
use
Con
ven
ient
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sC
ontr
olE
njo
yab
leC
anuse
for
cert
ain
pro
duct
sE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
cA
dvan
ced
tech
nol
ogy
Lov
esth
eop
tion
Abilit
yto
see
pri
ces
Nov
elty
Usi
ng
self
-ser
vic
eto
fill
tim
e
30 11 11 7 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Can
use
for
few
pro
duct
sE
njo
yab
leN
ovel
tyA
ccura
teA
ssis
tance
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Con
trol
Fam
ilia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
Lik
esse
lf-s
ervic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Sel
f-sc
anis
chal
lengin
g
22 8 7 6 5 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fas
tE
njo
yab
leE
asy
touse
Con
ven
ient
No
wai
ting
Con
trol
Acc
ura
te
8 3 3 2 2 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
75
(as expected based on the comparison of attribute means) that irrespective ofwhere they were interviewed consumers who had used or planned to use self-scanning viewed this option as fast
Other frequently cited reasons for using self-scanning were that there wasno waiting (related to speed) and it was easy to use convenient and enjoyableControl and accuracy were also mentioned but less frequently In addition toreasons related to attributes of self-scanning respondents mentioned ` avoidinteraction with employeersquorsquo and ` employees are rude unhelpful etcrsquorsquo thusoffering some support for hypothesis H2a Favorable attitudes toward usingtechnology were mentioned in a variety of ways ndash ` advanced technologyrsquorsquo` familiarity with technologyrsquorsquo ` self-scan is challengingrsquorsquo ` loves the optionrsquorsquo and` noveltyrsquorsquo ndash thus offering support for hypothesis H3a
Table IV compares reasons consumers do not like or do not plan to use theself-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 4)in-store respondents who had used but disliked this option (n = 17) and in-storerespondents who had not used this option and were not planning to try it(n = 18) The most important reason these consumers would want to avoid theself-scan option is that they like to interact with employees thus supportinghypothesis H2b As additional support for H2b some respondents said thatself-scanning was impersonal or they liked the social experience and therelationship with employees
Other important reasons for avoiding self-scanning include perceptions that it isdifficult to use or the customer is not familiar with it There isalso a sense that the customer has a right to expect service theself-scan involves too much effort and the price should be lower forself-service These along with other reasons such as `dislikes automationrsquorsquo ` lack offamiliarityrsquorsquo and `uncomfortable with using self-scanrsquorsquo suggest unfavorableattitudes toward using technology thus supporting hypothesis H3b Perceptionsof the self-scan as slow inaccurate difficult to use having process problems andinconvenient add indirect but further support for hypothesis H3b
Table V compares situations where consumers would want to use the self-scan option among three groups respondents at the self-scanners (n = 6)in-store respondents who had used this option (and either liked or disliked it)(n = 16) and in-store respondents who had not used this option (n = 16) Themost frequently mentioned situation relates to number of items In other wordsif the store did not have a policy restricting the number of items a customercould have in order to use the self-scan more consumers would be willing touse this option
Other situations cited frequently were ` if (there is a) line at regular checkoutrsquorsquoand ` if (customer is) in a hurryrsquorsquo These situations along with ` if line at self-scan isshortrsquorsquo reveal the importanceof speed andor theperceptionof the self-scan as fastThose relatively unfamiliar with the self-scan however said they would use theoption if they hadthetime to learnhow if someonehelped themand if theygained
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
76
Table IVReasons for not usingself-scan option
Why
self-s
can
option
will
not
be
use
dre
gul
arly
(Res
pon
dents
atse
lf-s
canne
rs)
n=
4
What
was
not
liked
abou
tse
lf-s
can
option
(In-
stor
ere
spon
den
tsw
hohad
use
dse
lf-s
can
option
)n
=17
Why
self
-sca
nop
tion
may
not
be
use
din
the
futu
re(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
18
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Hab
it(u
sing
regula
rch
eckou
t)N
eed
ince
nti
ve
for
self
-ser
vic
eT
ime
pre
ssure
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
ySel
f-sc
anis
imper
sonal
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eT
oom
uch
effo
rtP
roce
sspro
ble
ms
Com
pute
rvoi
cean
noy
ing
Pri
cesh
ould
be
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eSlo
wD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
Not
accu
rate
Inco
nven
ient
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lon
glines
atse
lf-s
can
Not
enou
gh
tim
esa
ved
Lim
iton
num
ber
ofpro
duct
sto
be
scan
ned
Pre
fers
trad
itio
nal
chec
k-o
ut
met
hod
Type
ofpro
duct
sU
nco
mfo
rtab
lew
ith
usi
ng
6 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lac
kof
fam
ilia
rity
Lik
esin
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Cust
omer
has
ari
ght
tose
rvic
eP
rice
shou
ldbe
low
erfo
rse
lf-s
ervic
eH
abit
(usi
ng
regula
rch
eckou
t)D
iffi
cult
touse
Not
accu
rate
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
yR
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
emplo
yee
sSoc
ial
exper
ience
7 4 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
77
Table VSituations influencing
the use of the self-scanoption
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(R
espon
den
tsat
self
-sca
nner
s)n
=6
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Under
what
situ
atio
ns
wou
ldse
lf-s
can
opti
onbe
use
d(I
n-s
tore
resp
onden
tsw
ho
had
not
use
dse
lf-s
can
opti
on)
n=
16
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
child
wan
tsto
use
4 2 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifin
ahurr
yIf
mot
ivat
edIf
purc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
line
atse
lf-s
can
issh
ort
To
avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
Ifban
kdid
not
char
ge
for
cash
wit
hdra
wal
sIf
corr
ect
chan
ge
Iffo
odst
amps
can
be
use
d
16 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iffe
wpro
duct
sIf
line
atre
gula
rch
eckou
tIf
ina
hurr
yIf
mor
eex
per
ience
Ifti
me
avai
lable
touse
Ifpurc
has
ing
cert
ain
types
ofpro
duct
sIf
opti
onis
easy
touse
Iffa
ster
Ifas
sist
ance
pro
vid
edin
lear
nin
gto
use
8 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
78
more experience in using this option Other concerns related to the type ofproducts they were buying or the payment options related to the self-scan
Shopping preferences for other technology-based self-service options For bothgroups of respondents (in-store and at the self-scanners) shopping preferenceswere determined for other technology-based self-service options versustraditional alternatives As mentioned these included
shopping from home vs shopping at the store
Internet shopping vs telephone shopping
using touch-tone dialing vs talking to a person when telephoneshopping
using a computer touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally in thestore and
using an ATM vs using a teller
Content analysis determined the reasons for these preferencesIrrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred shopping
at the store to shopping from home (see Tables I and VI) Table VI comparesreasons consumers gave for shopping from home vs shopping at the storeThe reasons supporting an option are marked as positive (+) and thoseagainst the alternative option are marked as negative (ndash) A reason relatedto a particular situation is marked as ` dependsrsquorsquo with a (D) The mostimportant reason for shopping from home is convenience followed by easeof use and ease of shopping In contrast the most important reason forshopping at the store is the ability to see products followed by verificationof items ability to touch products and social experience Other reasonsmentioned frequently for shopping at the store are avoiding returns ease ofreturn and convenience which are parallel to the reasons for shopping fromhome Thus consumers who prefer a particular option think it is fasteroffers more control is more reliable (accurate) easier to use and moreenjoyable than the alternative option Some reasons against shopping fromhome are similar to reasons for avoiding self-scanning (eg too much effortor discomfort)
In-store respondents clearly preferred telephone shopping whereasrespondents at the self-scanners preferred Internet shopping (see Tables I andVII) Table VII compares reasons consumers gave for Internet shopping vstelephone shopping Ironically the most important reason for preferringInternet shopping is ` the ability to see productsrsquorsquo also the most importantreason for shopping at the store This is followed by ease of use control andsecurity The most important reason against telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrast themost important reasons for preferring telephone shopping are ` likes to interactwith employeesrsquorsquo and ` employees are friendly helpful etcrsquorsquo thus supportinghypothesis H5b This is followed by security familiarity ease of use
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
79
Table VIShopping
preferencehome vs store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
+C
onven
ient
124
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s32
19+
Eas
yto
use
3+
Ver
ific
atio
nof
item
s15
9+
Eas
eof
shop
pin
g3
+A
bilit
yto
touch
pro
duct
s9
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s1
1+
Soc
ial
exper
ience
52
(cat
alog
ue
pic
ture
s)+
Avoi
dre
turn
ing
purc
has
es3
+A
ccura
te1
+E
ase
ofre
turn
2+
Con
trol
1+
Con
ven
ient
31
+F
ast
11
+A
ccura
te2
+N
ovel
ty1
+F
amilia
rity
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
bilit
yto
see
pri
ces
1+
Abilit
yto
try
pro
duct
1+
Eas
yto
use
1+
Enjo
ysh
oppin
g1
+F
resh
nes
sof
pro
duct
s1
+H
abit
11
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
1+
Em
plo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c1
+M
ethod
ofpay
men
t ndashca
sh1
+M
ore
pro
duct
var
iety
1+
Con
trol
1+
No
wai
ting
ondel
iver
y1
+W
ider
sele
ctio
n1
1+
Sec
uri
ty1
+C
hea
per
1(c
onti
nued
)
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
80
Table VI
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rhom
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=15
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=7)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rst
ore
shop
pin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=56
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=30
)
ndashD
islikes
stor
esh
oppin
g3
2ndash
Cos
tof
ship
pin
gw
ith
Inte
rnet
1ndash
Avoi
dcr
owds
2ndash
Lac
kof
capab
ilit
yw
ith
Inte
rnet
(no
cred
itca
rd)
1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
1ndash
Lac
kof
pro
duct
vis
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
)1
emplo
yee
sT
oom
uch
effo
rt(h
ome
shop
pin
g)
1ndash
Tim
epre
ssure
1ndash
Unfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(Inte
rnet
)1
ndashD
islikes
shop
pin
gfr
omhom
eor
wor
k1
ndashL
ack
ofse
curi
ty(I
nte
rnet
)1
ndashN
otco
mfo
rtab
le(w
ith
hom
esh
oppin
g)
1ndash
Doe
snrsquot
thin
kab
out
online
shop
pin
g1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
21
DT
ime
avai
lable
1D
Only
know
npro
vid
ers
wit
hhig
hqual
ity
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
11
Tot
al28
15T
otal
9045
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
81
Table VIIShopping preferenceInternet shopping vs
telephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rIn
tern
etsh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=18
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=19
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
tele
phon
esh
oppin
gIn
-sto
re(n
=52
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=16
)
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s4
11+
Lik
esto
inte
ract
wit
hem
plo
yee
141
+E
asy
touse
33
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
+C
ontr
ol2
1+
Sec
uri
ty6
1+
Sec
uri
ty2
2+
Fam
ilia
rity
52
+F
ast
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s4
+A
ccura
te1
+E
asy
touse
33
+C
onfi
rmat
ion
1+
Fas
t3
3+
Con
ven
ient
11
+A
bilit
yto
see
pro
duct
s(c
atal
ogue)
3+
No
wai
ting
1+
Hab
it3
+F
amilia
rity
wit
hIn
tern
et2
+C
onven
ient
2+
Wid
erse
lect
ion
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashin
form
atio
n1
+E
njo
yab
le1
+N
ow
aiti
ng
1+
Lik
eit
1+
Acc
ura
te1
+E
asie
rto
com
par
epri
ces
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
63
ndashL
ack
ofac
cess
ibilit
y(I
nte
rnet
com
pute
r)11
5
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(Inte
rnet
)11
4
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
phon
e1
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(Inte
rnet
)1
2ndash
Dis
likes
reco
rdin
gs
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(com
pute
r)1
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
(eyes
ight)
1D
Ifev
eryth
ing
wer
eav
aila
ble
on-lin
e1
Tot
al25
30T
otal
7125
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
82
convenience etc showing that preference for an option makes consumers thinkit does better on the same attributes Finally lack of familiarity and lack ofaccessibility are major reasons against shopping on the Internet
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred speakingto a person when telephone shopping to using touch-tone dialing (see TablesI and VIII) Table VIII compares reasons consumers gave for using touch-tone dialing vs speaking to a person when telephone shopping The mostimportant reasons for using touch-tone dialing are that it is easy to use andfast offering indirect sypport for hypothesis H6a The only reason givenagainst speaking to a person when telephone shopping is to avoidinteraction with employees thus supporting hypothesis H5a In contrastthe most important reason for talking to a person when telephone shoppingis ` likes to interact with employeersquorsquo This together with ``employees arefriendly helpful etcrsquorsquo and several reasons related to assistance byemployees on the telephone strongly support hypothesis H5b Againinterestingly consumers who prefer this option see it as fast easy to useand offering control and also see the touch-tone option as difficult to useinconvenient slow annoying impersonal and not enjoyable Their otherreasons against using touch-tone dialing point to unfavorable attitudestoward technology (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines do nottrust technology not comfortable with technology etc) thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Irrespective of the group the majority of consumers preferred orderingverbally to an employee to using a touch screen in a store although ahigher percentage of respondents using the self-scan preferred the touchscreen option (see Tables I and IX) Table IX compares reasons consumersgave for using a touch screen in the store vs ordering verbally to anemployee in the store The most important reasons for using a touch screenin the store are that it is easy to use fast convenient and accurate Thesereasons along with reasons such as superiority novelty familiarityand enjoyable are indicative of a favorable attitude toward usingtechnology thus supporting hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst ordering verbally is to avoid interaction with employees thussupporting hypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasonsfor ordering verbally in a store are to interact with employees toget assistance and employees are friendly helpful etc thussupporting hypothesis H5b Again consumers who prefer this option see itas fast easy to use and offering control and also see the touch screenoption as difficult to use inflexible slow inconvenient and involvingtoo much effort These reasons along with other reasons against usinga touch screen (eg dislikes automation dislikes using machines donot trust technology not comfortable with technology etc)point to unfavorable attitudes toward technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
83
Table VIIIShopping preference
using touch-tonedialing vs speaking to
a person whentelephone shopping
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
+E
asy
touse
52
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
211
+F
ast
32
+A
ssis
tance
ndashan
swer
ques
tion
s21
3+
Con
ven
ient
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-in
form
atio
n9
1+
Lik
esto
uch
-ton
e1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c8
+A
ccura
te1
+A
ccura
te6
6+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
63
know
ledge
+F
ast
52
+E
asy
touse
53
+C
ontr
ol3
+N
ow
aiti
ng
12
+F
amilia
rity
1+
Peo
ple
per
form
bet
ter
1+
Tru
st1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
21
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
31
emplo
yee
ndashD
islikes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
22
ndashT
oom
uch
effo
rt2
ndashD
iffi
cult
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
2ndash
Lac
kof
contr
ol(t
ouch
-ton
e)2
ndashA
nnoy
ing
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
ch-t
one)
11
(con
tinued
)
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
84
Table VIII
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rto
uch
-ton
edia
ling
In-s
tore
(n=
7)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=6)
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rsp
eakin
gto
aper
son
In-s
tore
(n=
61)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=29
)
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Imper
sonal
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Pro
cess
pro
ble
ms
(tou
ch-t
one)
1ndash
Don
rsquottr
ust
tech
nol
ogy
1ndash
Not
enjo
yab
le(t
ouch
-ton
e)1
1ndash
Not
com
fort
able
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Physi
cal
lim
itat
ion
1D
Ifor
der
issi
mple
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1T
otal
138
Tot
al93
44
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
85
Table IXShopping preferenceusing touch screen in
store vs orderingverbally in store
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
+E
asy
touse
76
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
294
+F
ast
57
+A
ssis
tance
ndashques
tion
s25
9+
Con
ven
ient
42
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c2
10+
Acc
ura
te3
2+
Acc
ura
te7
3+
No
wai
ting
21
+E
asy
touse
61
+F
amilia
rity
12
+A
ssis
tance
ndashin
form
atio
n4
3+
Les
sef
fort
1+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashpro
duct
know
ledge
3+
Nov
elty
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
34
+Super
iori
ty1
+F
ast
21
+E
njo
yab
le1
+A
ssis
tance
ndashhan
dle
pro
ble
ms
22
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
21
+C
ontr
ol1
+P
erso
nal
ized
serv
ice
1+
Pre
fers
per
sonal
assi
stan
ce1
+R
elat
ionsh
ipw
ith
per
sonnel
1+
Tru
st1
+V
erif
icat
ion
ofor
der
1+
Fle
xib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+L
ikes
tobe
serv
ed1
+C
ust
omer
has
right
tose
rvic
e1
ndashA
voi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
34
ndashD
islikes
auto
mat
ion
52
emplo
yee
sndash
Pos
sible
serv
ice
failure
4ndash
Avoi
dbot
her
ing
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es3
emplo
yee
sndash
Too
much
effo
rt2
ndashC
once
rnab
out
accu
racy
1ndash
Dif
ficu
ltto
use
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
1(c
ontinued
)
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
86
Table IX
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
touch
scre
enIn
-sto
re(n
=17
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=14
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
order
ing
ver
bal
lyIn
-sto
re(n
=81
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=34
)
ndashIn
flex
ibilit
yof
com
pute
rs1
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
wit
hte
chnol
ogy
1ndash
Tec
hnop
hob
ic1
ndashSlo
w(t
ouch
scre
en)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(tou
chsc
reen
)1
DT
ype
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofpro
duct
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(gro
cery
)1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
larg
enum
ber
ofpro
duct
s1
DE
asy
touse
ndashif
no
lines
1D
Type
ofst
ore
(non
-gro
cery
)1
Tot
al30
26T
otal
110
52
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
87
In-store respondents were equally divided as to preference for using ATMsand bank tellers whereas respondents at the self-scanners clearly preferredusing ATMs (see Tables I and X) Table X compares reasons consumersgave for using an ATM vs using a teller The most important reasons forusing an ATM are that it is fast convenient accessible and easy to useagain offering indirect support for hypothesis H6a The main reason givenagainst using tellers is to avoid interaction with employees which togetherwith the reason that employees were rude unhelpful etc offers support forhypothesis H5a In contrast the most important reasons for using a tellerare liking to interact with employees (in-store respondents) and employeesare friendly helpful etc (respondents at self-scanners) thus supportinghypothesis H5b Other reasons such as assistance and social experience alsooffer support for H5b The main reasons against using ATMs (eg dislikesautomation dislikes using machines unfavorable experiences etc) indicatean unfavorable attitude toward using technology thus supportinghypothesis H6b
DiscussionA main research issue in the study was to determine consumer reasons forusing or avoiding self-scanning checkouts in retail stores Our quantitativeanalysis showed that control reliability ease of use and enjoyment wereindeed important to consumers in using the self-scanning option Althoughspeed was not differentiated among consumers who planned to use this optionregularly and those who did not mean values of attribute perceptions showedclearly that self-scanning was very much viewed as a fast option by consumerswho had tried it
Our content analysis supported these findings but in addition showed thepredominance of speed as a reason for liking the self-scan option The otherreasons tested in the quantitative analysis (ie control reliability ease of useand enjoyment) were also mentioned but less frequently One factor notincluded in the theroretical framework but frequently mentioned byrespondents was convenience Future studies will need to determine whetherconvenience is a separate construct or whether it overlaps with speed andorease of use
In addition to reasons related to attributes consumers planned to use thisoption to avoid interaction with employees andor because they had favorableattitudes toward using technology in general So far this is good news forsupermarket chains as well as for other retailers considering this optionconsumers who prefer self-scanning see it as offering many benefits and theyseem inclined to use it whenever possible
With regard to reasons for avoidance of self-scanning we found that manyconsumers truly like to interact with employees and the self-scanning checkoutcannot fulfill this need These consumers did have unfavorable attitudestoward using technology in general and the stores would have little control
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
88
Table XBanking preferenceusing ATM vs usingteller
Cat
egor
yP
refe
rusi
ng
AT
MIn
-sto
re(n
=49
)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=35
)C
ateg
ory
Pre
fer
usi
ng
teller
In-s
tore
(n=
51)
At
self
-sc
anner
s(n
=12
)
+F
ast
2426
+L
ikes
toin
tera
ctw
ith
emplo
yee
s20
1+
Con
ven
ient
1713
+A
ccura
te9
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
afte
rhou
rs11
4+
Ass
ista
nce
ndashques
tion
s6
2+
Eas
yto
use
68
+Sec
uri
ty5
+F
amilia
rity
31
+E
asy
touse
41
+A
cces
sibilit
yndash
mult
iple
loca
tion
s3
1+
Fam
ilia
rity
3+
No
wai
ting
23
+H
abit
3+
Con
firm
atio
n2
+Soc
ial
exper
ience
22
+L
ess
effo
rt1
1+
Ass
ista
nce
-han
dle
pro
ble
ms
2+
Doe
snot
nee
das
sist
ance
1+
Con
firm
atio
nof
dep
osit
2+
Acc
ura
te1
+F
ast
2+
Enjo
yab
le1
+C
ost
1+
Hab
it1
+G
reat
ersa
tisf
acti
on1
+Sec
uri
ty1
+P
refe
rstr
adit
ional
met
hod
1+
Tru
st1
+E
mplo
yee
sar
efr
iendly
hel
pfu
let
c3
+F
lexib
ilit
yw
ith
emplo
yee
s1
+V
ersa
tility
ndashot
her
serv
ices
1ndash
Avoi
din
tera
ctio
nw
ith
emplo
yee
24
ndashU
nfa
vor
able
exper
ience
(AT
M)
31
ndashE
mplo
yee
sar
eru
de
unhel
pfu
let
c1
2ndash
Dis
likes
auto
mat
ion
31
ndashT
ime
pre
ssure
1ndash
Dis
likes
usi
ng
mac
hin
es2
ndashL
ack
ofex
per
ience
wit
hte
ller
1ndash
Dis
likes
AT
Ms
1ndash
Cos
tas
soci
ated
wit
hA
TM
1ndash
Lac
kof
acce
ssib
ilit
y(A
TM
dow
n)
11
ndashL
ack
offa
milia
rity
(AT
M)
11
ndashL
ack
oftr
ust
(AT
M)
1ndash
Inco
nven
ient
touse
(AT
M)
1D
For
wit
hdra
wal
s1
1D
Purp
ose
oftr
ansa
ctio
n2
Tot
al76
68T
otal
7518
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
89
over changing such attitudes especially in the short term Also earlier we hadraised the issue of effort and wondered whether this might be why self-scanning checkouts seem to face some resistance in contrast to ATMs whichare so widely accepted Our study did show that consumers who disliked self-scanning expressed a sense of having a right to be served and that self-scanning involved too much effort Given these findings it would not beprudent to switch completely to self-scanning as some grocery stores inSweden have done Retailers that do this would stand to lose a large part oftheir clientele especially in regions with healthy competition in the particularservice industry The best scenario is to offer both options and gradually winover more and more consumers to the self-scanning checkout The good news isthat there is a sizeable segment that does prefer this option so as to make theinvestment in it economically viable for grocery chains as well as for otherretailers
Another research issue was to explore the possible influence of demographicfactors Our quantitative analysis showed that demographic factors such asage gender and education had no influence on the use of self-scanning Theonly demographic factor that was different was that those who used self-scanning had greater access to the Internet The implication for grocery storesor other retailers planning to offer self-scanning is that as Internet access iswidened ndash as it will undoubtedly ndash consumer acceptance and use of thetechnology-based self-service options within stores should increase as well
With regard to the effect of demographic influences on other technology-based self-service options our study did find that younger people were morelikely to prefer using ATMs to using tellers and younger males more likely toprefer Internet shopping to telephone shopping Greater Internet access wasalso related to both these preferences Practitioners especially those who hopeto increase Internet sales significantly should ensure that younger males knowand approve of their Websites A related implication for Internet marketers isto increase access to and familiarity with the Internet for a wider audienceespecially as inaccessibility and unfamiliarity were two major reasons cited byconsumers against Internet shopping
Yet another research objective was to investigate the influence of situationalfactors on the evaluation and use of self-scanning checkouts Our quantitativeanalysis found only one situational factor to be relevant Under crowdedconditions consumers viewed the self-scan as faster than under normalconditions This is an important finding for practitioners at crowded times thepresence of a self-scanning checkout will assure its good utilization and helppay toward the investment in this technology
Our content analysis revealed many possible situations where consumerswould use self-scanning all of which have managerial implications The mostimportant situation cited was the number of products purchased Currentlymany stores set a maximum number of products that can be bought throughthe self-scanning checkout Although NCR reports that 60 percent of USshoppers have fewer than 12 items at checkout (Solomon 1997) the restriction
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
90
keeps consumers from using the self-scanning checkout when they have manyitems to purchase Respondents indicated that they would be likely to use self-scanning when they have fewer products than the maximum allowed Byremoving this constraint or raising the number of items allowed grocerystores should be able to increase the use of self-scanning This is an implicationthat retailers considering offering self-scanning checkouts should bear in mindwhen considering alternative systems with or without such constraints
Other reasons cited showed a willingness to try self-scanning if there isassistance in showing the customer how self-scanners work and if paymentoptions preferred by the customer apply Clearly managers have anopportunity here to increase utilization of the self-scanning checkout by havingan employee stand by and offer to actively help consumers learn how to use it(as banks did years ago when the ATM was first introduced) Utilization mayalso be increased by adopting systems that are flexible in allowing consumersto pay for their purchases using a variety of methods as is possible through thetraditional checkout These implications apply to grocery chains as well as toretailers in general
A fourth research objective was to compare the use of self-scanningcheckouts with shopping preferences for other types of technology-based self-service We found that consumers who use self-scanning prefer Internetshopping to telephone shopping and also prefer using ATMs to using tellersThis is understandable because the reasons driving preference for thesedifferent technology-based self-service options are similar fast convenientaccessible reliable avoiding interaction with an employee and so on Thebroad implication for practitioners is that for technologies that work wellconsumers with favorable attitudes toward using technology in general willtransfer those attitudes to a variety of technology-based self-service optionsOther implications relate to the set of attributes that consumers foundimportant in each case Practitioners should ensure that their particulartechnology-based self-service option offers the specific attributes consumersseek from that service
In contrast most consumers irrespective of their use of self-scanning prefershopping at the store vs shopping at home speaking to a person whentelephone shopping vs using touch-tone dialing and ordering verbally with anemployee vs using a touch screen in a store It is interesting that whereas someconsumers prefer the Internet to telephone shopping they still prefer to shop atthe store to shopping from home The ability to see and touch products and toverify items is extremely important to a majority of consumers and ease ofreturn is also a consideration Until Websites make it easy for consumers toview products and Internet marketers simplify returns this preference isunlikely to change
It is not surprising that preference for talking to a person when telephoneshopping to using touch-tone dialing is almost universal Given the frustrationbrought about by interminable directions on automated telephone systemsmost consumers are rightly reluctant to use these systems To change attitudes
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
91
toward this particular technology-based self-service automated touch-tonesystems need enormous improvement in terms of speed information as towaiting time and easy options to connect with a person or to leave a voicemessage
It is not clear why most consumers prefer ordering verbally in a store tousing a touch screen We had expected that those who use self-scanning wouldprefer using a touch screen as well Although the percentage was higher in thisgroup as expected the difference across groups was not statisticallysignificant Perhaps this option is so new that respondents were not assuredthat it would be faster than the verbal option Unlike the ATM touch screens inretail stores vary widely in terms of user-friendliness and respondents chose tobe conservative in answering a question where they could not be sure ofattributes as they could with the widely familiar ATM The implication forpractitioners is to design better touch screens in terms of flexibility and user-friendliness so that consumers will eventually be as comfortable with usingthem as they are with using ATMs
Having discussed managerial implications along with the detaileddiscussion of our findings it remains to acknowledge limitations of the studycompare efficacies of different research methodologies and suggest directionsfor future research In terms of limitations our sample was relatively small andwe collected information from only one store to that extent the results may notbe widely generalizable The small sample also precluded the use of structuralequations but this was relevant for only a small part of our overall researchplan The sample size was more than sufficient for thorough content analysisas well as for conducting t-tests ANOVAs and nonparametric statistical testsA second limitation is that consumer time constraints (especially while groceryshopping) prevented us from including many more questions of interest in oursurveys Still we were able to capture much useful information in relativelyshort but carefully structured interviews
Having used a variety of research and analytical methods in this study ouroverall conclusion not surprisingly is that where possible a combination ofmethods yields the most information For example our quantitative analysissupported past theory with respect to attributes important for using self-scanning Our content analysis corroborated these results but the frequenciesfor the reasons cited gave a clearer indication of the most important reasonsmotivating consumers to use or avoid the self-scanning checkout In additionwhere theory was lacking we were able to determine through content analysisthat consumers who avoided self-scanning perceived the traditional checkoutas performing better on the same attributes that were important for using self-scanning checkouts We had conjectured that this might be one of twoalternatives The other possibility was that consumers may think the self-scandoes better on some of these attributes but they choose the traditional checkoutin spite of this in order to interact with employees The findings showed thatconsumers who preferred the traditional checkout viewed it as performingbetter on all the same attributes and also liked to interact with employees The
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
92
two sets of reasons together form a strong basis for their choice of thetraditional checkout suggesting to managers that they need to offer bothoptions for the foreseeable future
Our content analysis also revealed that consumers who used self-scanninghad favorable attitudes toward using technology in general and wanted toavoid interaction with employees This was also true for consumers whopreferred Internet shopping using touch-tone dialing touch screens or ATMsIn contrast our content analysis revealed that consumers who avoided self-scanning had unfavorable attitudes toward using technology in general and asmentioned earlier wanted to interact with employees This was also true forconsumers who preferred telephone shopping speaking to a person orderingverbally in a store or using a teller Certainly these findings could have beenverified through quantitative analysis as in Dabholkarrsquos (1996) study on touchscreens however it would have considerably lengthened the questionnaire tocapture items measuring all of these constructs for the various contexts Inaddition support from a different research approach for these hypotheses onreasons for using and avoiding self-scanning checkouts as well as several othertechnology-based self-service options advances services marketing theoryeven further
In addition our content analysis revealed that attributes similar to thosecited for using or avoiding self-scanning (eg speed control enjoyment)motivated the use or avoidance of various technology-based self-serviceoptions Again to verify this through quantitative analysis would have beencumbersome and close to impossible in a field setting Our research approach inthis case allowed us to garner huge amounts of relevant information in anefficient way The content analysis also revealed attributes not included inprevious models and it is up to future research to determine rigorously if theseattributes are unique constructs or if there is overlap
But content analysis could not tell us much about the influence ofdemographic factors In contrast our quantitative findings showed thatdemographic factors (other than Internet access) were not relevant for using oravoiding self-scanning In most cases however findings from content analysisand quantitative methods supported each other as discussed earlier Anothercase in point is that eye-balling frequencies for shopping preferences (Table I)revealed which ones were different for the two main respondent groups butquantitative analysis offered statistical support for this assumption As forsituational factors influencing the use of self-scanning quantitative analysissupported only one factor (crowding) to be significant whereas content analysisextracted a number of new ideas that managers could work on to possiblyimprove utilization of self-scanning Again the two methods together allowedus to confirm hypotheses based on theory as well as to uncover motivationaland behavioral patterns and raise new issues for managers to consider and forfuture researchers to investigate further
Based on our results we recommend a combination of research methodsincluding content analysis and different types of quantitative testing for future
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
93
research on technology-based self-service In addition we offer the followingsuggestions for future studies Studies similar to ours but conducted for othercontexts where new technology-based self-service options are being proposedor tested would be very useful to practitioners in that industry The attributesextracted from our content analysis could be measured through surveys infuture research to allow statistical testing of their relative significance for avariety of contexts offering technology-based self-service Situational factorsuncovered in our content analysis could be controlled and tested in futurestudies with lab or field settings Finally future research could test acombination of technology-based ` self-servicersquorsquo with varying degrees ofinteraction with service employees in a variety of contexts The idea would beto gauge the viability of such combinations in an attempt to win over thoseconsumers who like to interact with service employees as well as those whohave somewhat unfavorable attitudes toward using technology entirely ontheir own
References
Anselmsson J (2001) ` `Customer-perceived service quality and technology-based self-servicersquorsquodoctoral dissertation Lund Business Press Lund University Lund
Bateson JEG (1985) ` Self-service consumer an exploratory studyrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 61No 3 pp 49-76
Blumberg DF (1994) ` Strategies for improving field service operations productivity andqualityrsquorsquo The Service Industries Journal Vol 14 No 2 pp 262-77
Bobbitt LM and Dabholkar PA (2001) ` Integrating attitudinal theories to understand andpredict use of technology-based self-service the Internet as an illustrationrsquorsquo InternationalJournal of Service Industry Management Vol 12 No 5 pp 423-50
Bowden B (2002) `Customers help check out new technologyrsquorsquo Arkansas Business Vol 19 No 5pp 15-8
Chain Store Age (2002) ` Time flies when yoursquore scanning for funrsquorsquo Chain Store Age Vol 76 No 2pp 2C-3C
Childers TL Christopher CL Peck J and Carson S (2001) ` Hedonic and utilitarianmotivations for online retail shopping behaviorrsquorsquo Journal of Retailing Vol 77 pp 511-35
Cowles D and Crosby LA (1990) ` Consumer acceptance of interactive mediarsquorsquo The ServiceIndustries Journal Vol 10 No 3 pp 521-40
Dabholkar PA (1992) `The role of prior behavior and category-based affect in on-site serviceencountersrsquorsquo in Sherry JF and Sternthal B (Eds) Diversity in Consumer BehaviorVol XIX Association for Consumer ResearchProvo UT pp 563-9
Dabholkar PA (1994a) ` Technology-based service delivery a classification scheme fordeveloping marketing strategiesrsquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds)Advances in Services Marketing and Management Vol 3 JAI Press Greenwich CTpp 241-71
Dabholkar PA (1994b) ` Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework analyzing modelsof mental comparison processesrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 21 pp 100-18
Dabholkar PA (1996) ` Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options aninvestigation of alternative models of service qualityrsquorsquo International Journal of Research inMarketing Vol 13 No 1 pp 29-51
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
IJSIM141
94
Dabholkar PA (2000) ` Technology in service delivery implications for self-service and service
supportrsquorsquo in Swartz TA and Iacobucci D (Eds) Handbook of Services Marketing and
Management Sage Publications New York NY pp 103-10
Dabholkar PA and Bagozzi RP (2002) `An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factorsrsquorsquo Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science Vol 30 No 3 pp 184-201
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1989) ` User acceptance of cmputer technology a
comparison of two theoretical modelsrsquorsquo Management Science Vol 35 No 8 pp 982-1003
Davis FD Bagozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) ` Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplacersquorsquo Journal of Applied Social Psychology Vol 22 No 14
pp 1109-30
Dickerson MD and Gentry JW (1983) ` Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of home
computersrsquorsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 10 pp 225-35
Discount Store News (1998a) `Meijer to adopt self-checkoutrsquorsquo Discount Store News Vol 37 No 18
pp 5-6
Discount Store News (1998b) ` Self-checkout systems add `on-linersquo efficiencyrsquorsquo Discount Store
News Vol 37 No 11 pp 70-1
Evans K and Brown SW (1988) ` Strategic options for service delivery systemsrsquorsquo in
Ingene CA and Frazier GL (Eds) Proceedings of the AMA Summer Educatorsrsquo
Conference American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 207-12
Forster J (2002) `Hungry for conveniencersquorsquo Business Week IndustryTechnology ed No 3765
pp 120-3
Gatignon H and Robertson TS (1985) `A propositional inventory for new diffusion researchrsquorsquo
Journal of Consumer Research Vol 11 March pp 849-67
Grant L (2001) ` Scan-it-yourself catching on in supermarketsrsquorsquo USA Today 7 June pp 1-6
available at wwwusatodaycom
HennessyT (1998) ` Taking controlrsquorsquo Progressive Grocer December pp 83-6
Hoffman DL and Novak TP (1996) `Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments conceptual foundationsrsquorsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 60 pp 50-68
Hunt J (1998) ` NCR ready for global rolloutrsquorsquo Grocer Vol 221 No 7361 p 19
Joreskog KG and Sorbom D (1993) LISREL8 Userrsquos Reference Guide Scientific Software
Chicago IL
Korgaonkar P and Moschis GP (1987) ` Consumer adoption of videotex servicesrsquorsquo Journal of
Direct Marketing Vol 1 No 4 pp 63-71
Ledingham JA (1984) `Are consumers ready for the information agersquorsquo Journal of Advertising
Research Vol 24 No 4 pp 31-7
Lovelock CH (1995) ` Technology servant or master in the delivery of servicesrsquorsquo in Swartz
TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in Services Marketing and
Management Vol 4 JAI Press Inc Greenwich CT pp 63-90
McDonald SB (2002) ` Retailers get to checkout PSCrsquos new scannerrsquorsquo Knight Ridder Tribune
Business News January 15 p 1
McMellon CA Schiffman LG and Sherman E (1997) ` Consuming cyberseniors some
personal and situational characteristics that influence their on-line behaviorrsquorsquo Advances in
Consumer Research Vol 24 pp 517-21
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales
Consumermotivation and
behavior
95
Meuter M and Bitner MJ (1998) ` Self-service technologies extending service frameworks andidentifying issues for researchrsquorsquo in Grewal D and Pechman C (Eds) Marketing Theoryand Applications American Marketing Association Chicago IL pp 12-9
Meuter M Ostrom AL Roundtree RI and Bitner MJ (2000) ` Self-service technologiesunderstanding consumer satisfaction with technology-based service encountersrsquorsquo Journalof Marketing Vol 64 No 3 pp 50-64
Prendergast GP and Marr NE (1994) `Disenchantment discontinuance in the diffusion oftechnologies in the service industry a case study in retail bankingrsquorsquo Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing Vol 7 No 2 pp 25-40
Quinn JB (1996) ` The productivity paradox is false information technology improves serviceperformancersquorsquo in Swartz TA Bowen DE and Brown SW (Eds) Advances in ServicesMarketing and Management Vol 5 JAI Press Greenwich CT pp 71-84
Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations The Free Press New York NY
Rohland P (2001) ` New service lets supermarket shopper check themselves outrsquorsquo EasternPennsylvania Business Journal Vol 12 No 2 pp 4-5
Ross JR (1997) ` Scanning to pleasersquorsquo January p 1 available at wwwidsystemscomreader
Sellers P (1990) `What consumers really wantrsquorsquo Fortune 4 June pp 58-68
Solomon H (1997) ` Can NCR succeed where others have failedrsquorsquo Computing Canada Vol 23No 25 pp 18-9
Wisely R (2002) ` Self-serve checkout lanes on groceriesrsquo leading edgersquorsquo The Detroit News(Technology) 27 February pp 1-2
Appendix Measures for attributes and preference (for self-scan)SpeedThe self-scan saves me timeThe self-scan lets me check out quickly
ControlThe self-scan gives me controlThe self-scan lets the customer be in charge
ReliabilityThe self-scan is accurateThe self-scan is reliable
Ease of useThe self-scan is easy to useThe self-scan does not take much effort
EnjoymentI enjoy using the self-scanIt is fun to scan the items yourself
PreferenceThe self-scan is better than the regular checkoutI prefer using the self-scan to using the regular checkout
Source Adapted from Dabholkar (1996) all items used seven-point Likert scales