matthew l. meuter, amy l. ostrom, robert i. roundtree, & …steho87/und/htdd01/3383341.pdf ·...

Matthew L. Meuter, Amy L. Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree, & Mary Jo Bitner

Self-Service Technologies:Understanding Customer

Satisfaction with Technology-BasedService Encounters

Self-service technologies (SSTs) are increasingly changing the way customers interact with firms to create serviceoutcomes. Given that the emphasis in the academic literature has focused almost exclusively on the interpersonaldynamics of service encounters, there is much to be learned about customer interactions with technology-basedself-service delivery options. In this research, the authors describe the results of a critical incident study based onmore than 800 incidents involving SSTs solicited from customers through a Web-based survey The authors cate-gorize these incidents to discern the sources of satisfaotion and dissatisfaction with SSTs. The authors present adisoussion of the resulting critical incident categories and their relationship to customer attributions, complainingbehavior, word of mouth, and repeat purchase intentions, which is followed by implications for managers andresearchers.

Today's fast-paced world is becoming increasinglycharacterized by lechnology-facililaled transactit)n.s.Growing numbers of customers interact with technol-

ogy to create service Outcomes instead of interacting with aservice firm employee. Self-service technologies (SSTs) aretechnological interfaces that enable customers to produce aservice independent of direct service employee involve-ment. Examples of SSfs include automated teller machines(ATMs), automated hotel checkout, banking by telephone,and services over the Internet, such as Federal Express pack-age tracking and online brokerage services.

Although extensive academic research has cxpU)red thecharacteristics and dynamics of interpersonal interactionsbetween service providers and customers (Betteneourt andGwinner 1996; Bitner. Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Clem-nier and Schneider 1996; Fischer. Gainer, and Bristor 1997;Goodwin 1996: Goodwin and Gremler 1996; Hartline andFerrell 1996: Rafacli 1993). much less research has investi-gated customer interactions with technological interfaces(Bitner. Brown, and Meuter 2000; Dabholkar 1996). Thecontinuing proliferation of SSTs conveys the need forresearch that extends beyond the interpersonal dynamics of

Matthew L. Meuter is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Villanova Univer-sity. Amy L, Ostrom and Robert I. Roundtree are Assistant Professors ofMarketing, and Mary Jo Bitner is AT&T Professor of Services Marketingand Management, Ari2ona State University. Each author contributedequally to the manuscript. The authors thank the three anonymous JMreviewers for their insightful comments on previous drafts of the article.The authors also gratefully acknowledge the Center for Services Market-ing and Management at Arizona State University for its support, as well asGreenfield Online, a division of the Greenfield Consulting Group, West-port, CT, for assistance in data collection.

service encounters into this technology-oriented context.This need is illustrated in many ways: For example, almt)sthalf of all retail banking transactions are now eonductedwithout the assistance of a bank teller (Lawrence and Karr1996). In additit)n, although some SSTs have hccome com-monplace {e.g., ATMs, pay-at-the-pump terminals), moreinnovative SSTs continue to be introdueed. For example, theInternet enables shoppers to purchase a wide variety ofproducts without having to visit a retail outlet or conversewith a serviee employee. In some states, u.sers can file fordivorce or evict a tenant using an automated kiosk ratherthan go through the traditional court system. Electronic self-ordering is currently heing developed by fast-food restau-rants, and self-scanning at retail stores has been tested and isprojected to become widely available in the future (Dab-holkar 1996; Gibson 1999; Merrill 1999).

It is increasingly evident that these technological inno-vations and advances will continue to be a critical compo-nent of customer-firm interactions. These technology-based interactions are expected to become a key criterionfor long-term business success. Parasuraman (1996) liststhe growing impt)rtance of self-service as a fundamentalshift in the nature of services. Although many academicresearchers have acknowledged a need for greater under-standing in this area (Dahholkar 1994. 1996; Fisk, Brown,and Bitner 1993: Meuter and Bitner 1998; Schneider andBowen 1995), little is known about how interactions withthese technological options affect customer evaluations andbehavior. To further our understanding, we explored serviceencounters involving SSTs to identify sources of satisfac-tion and dissatisfaction. The research questions driving thisstudy are as follows:

•Whai arc the sources ol'cusiomer satisfaction and dissatisfac-tion in encounters involving SSTs?

50 / Journal of Marketing, July 2000Journal of MarketingVol. 64 (July 2000), 50-64

•Arc the sources of L:usit)incr satisfaction and dissatisfactionwith SST encounters similar tu or Jittcrcnl from the sourcesof customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction with ititcrpersonalencounters?

•How are .satisfying and dissatisfying encounters with SSTsrelated to attributions, coniplaining. word of mouth, andrepurchase intentions?

To investigate these questions, we combined the criticalincident technique (CIT) t)riginaily developed hy Flanagan(i9.'^4) with quantitative measures of attrihutions, complain-ing behavior, word olmouth. and repurchase intentions. Thecritical incident mcihod has heen used in a wide variety ofdisciplines (e.g., Copas 1984; Lathan and Saari 1984; Whiteand Locke 1981). including marketing (Bitner. Booms, andMohr 1994; Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Grove andFisk 1997; Iacobucci, Ostrom. and Grayson 1995; Keaveney1995). In this study, we use CIT to determine the sources ofsatisfaction and dissatisfaction with SSTs from the cus-tomer's point of view.

Conceptual FoundationsService EncountersHistorically, virtually all serviee encounters took place withan employee and a customer present. Because of this, mostservice encounter research has focused on interpersonalinteractions, mainly between customers and firm employees(Bitner. Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Mohr and Bitner 1995;Price. Arnould. and Dcibler 1995; Solomon et al. 1985; Sur-prenant and Solomon 1987). For exatnple. Solomon and ctil-leagues (1985) explore personalization in the dyadic inter-action between service providers and customers and theresulting customer satisfaction with the service. Researchershave also explored customer-customer interactions in ser-vice settings (Grove and Fisk 1997; Martin and Pranter1989). Others have examined interpersonal dynamics in thecontext of service recovery encounters and the resultingimpact on satisfaction (Smith and Bolton 1998; Tax andBrown 1998; Tax. Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998).

Prior research has used CIT to examine sources of dis/sat-isfacttiry evaluations in interpersonal service encounters. Bit-ner. Booms, and Telreault (1990) explore customer-employeeinteractions in restaurants, hotels, and airlines. They find thatthe factors aftecting the evaluation of the service encountercan be classified into three main categories: ( I ) employeerespon.se to service delivery failure. (2) employee response tocustomer needs and requests, and (3) unprompted and unso-licited actions by employees. Grove and Fisk (1997) also useCIT to examine factors leading to dis/satisfactory evaluationsof interpersinial service encounters. The focus of Grove andFisk's sludy is customer-customer interactions in amusementtheme parks. They Imd that service experiences were atfectedby other customers" adherence to implicit or explicit rules ofct)nduct and hy the perceived sociahility of other customers.

Note that in each study, the set of factors that leads tosatisfying encounters also leads to dissatisfying ones. Inother words, the incident categories for satisfactory and dis-satisfactory encounters were mirror images of each other.For example, in Bitner. Booms, and Tetreault's (1990) study.

employee response to custoiner needs and requests was asource of both dissatisfaction and satisfaction, depending onthe nature of the employee response.

Whereas these studies explore important determinants ofdis/satisfaction in an interpersonal setting, we investigatefactors that are important when a customer independentlyproduces a service through a technological interface. Thisenables us to assess whether the sources of dis/satisfactionin interpersonal encounters are also important in technol-ogy-hascd eneounlers. In addition, we ean determine if thesame set of factors leads to hoth satisfactory and dissatis-factory encounters.

Self-Service Technoiogies

Recently, academic researchers have recognized the criticalimportance of technology in tbe delivery of services (Bitner.Brown, and Meuter 2000; Dahholkar 1994. 1996; Parasura-man 1996; Quinn 1996). Some suggest that the traditionalmarketplace interaction is being replaced hy a marketspacetransaction (Rayport and Sviokia 1994. 1995). The tnarkct-space is defined as "a virtual realm where products and ser-vices exist as digital information and can he deliveredthrough information based cbannels" (Rayport and Sviokia1995, p. 14). The foundation of customer-company interac-tions has significantly changed in this new marketspaeeenvironment. Self-service technologies are a classic exatn-ple of marketspace transactions in which no interpersonalcontact is required between buyer and seller.

Several studies bave investigated issues involving SSTs.mainly ft>cusing on the development of u.ser proilles (Bateson1985; Darian 1987; Eastlick 1996; Greco and Fields 1991;Langeard et al. 1981; ZeithamI and Gilly 1987). For example,Langeard and colleagues (198!) attempt to segment marketst)n the hasis of willingness to participate actively in the deliv-ery of services. This is one ol the most comprehensive earlystudies done to identify and describe customers who might hewilling to use a self-service delivery alternative. Langeard andcolleagues (1981) find that participators tend to he younger,single, and better educated and have a lower income level.Bateson (1985) explores the choice hetween a self-.serviceoption and an interpersonal service delivery system. Batesonexamines the attractiveness of self-service options when theusual monetary or time-saving incentives are controlled andfinds tbat a significant group of people choose to u.se a sell-service option even without monetary or time-saving henellts.

One issue to he noted from these early studies is thathoth Langeard and colleagues (1981) and Bateson (1985)make no distinction between technology-hased self-servicescenarios and more labor-intensive self-service situations.Only two of the six self-service scenarios used across thestudies were technology-based (i.e., using ATMs and pur-chasing traveler's checks from an automated machine). It islikely that the technological aspect of many recent self-ser-vice options has a unique inlluence on consumer percep-tions of these self-service encounters. Researchers continueto be interested in how attitudes toward technology mayinlluence the extent to which consumers interact with tech-nology-based products and services (Dahholkar 1996; Para-suraman 1998; Raub 1981).

Self-Service Technologies/ 51

Dabholkar (1992) explores issues such as how attitudestoward computeri/.ed products and a need for interactionwith service employees affect attitudes. Dabholkar finds thathoth factors influence consumer attitudes toward using acomputerized fast-food ordering SST. In a more recent study.Dahholkar (1996) examines evaluations of SST service qual-ity by making comparisons hetween an attribute mcxlel basedon what customers expect from the computerized fast-foodordering SST across various attrihutcs (expected speed ofdelivery, ease of use. reliability, enjoyment, and control) andan overall affect model hased on beliefs ahout the use oftechnology and the need for interaction with service employ-ees. Dabholkar finds the attrihute model to he superior inpredicting evaluations, and enjoyment and control are thetwo most influential attributes.

Types of SSTsThe existing research on SSTs focuses on either a singletechnology in agivcn study (e.g., Dabholkar 1992, 1996) or,in the case of the early studies, primarily low-technologyself-service (e.g.. hotel vending machines versus room .ser-vice) and primitive forms of ATMs (Bateson 1985;Langeard et al. 1981). None of the research attempts toexamine the range of SSTs availahle to consumers today. Inthe current study, we explore diverse availahle SSTs—someare well established, whereas others are in their infancy, andothers may never be successful on a large scale.

In Figure I we present our conceptualization of present-day SST options, which is based on a review of the academicliterature, trade press, ohservation, and our work with compa-nies. The columns of the matrix represent the types of tech-nologies companies are using to interface with customers inself-service encounters. The rows of the matrix repre.sent thepurposes of the technologies from the customer perspective—what the custotner can accomplish by using the technology.

The types of technology interfaces (the columns in Fig-ure I) include telephone-hased tcchnoU)gies and variousinteractive voice response systems, direct online connec-

tit)ns and Internet-based interfaces, interactive free-standingkiosks, and video or compact disc (CD) technologies. Some-times these technologies are used in combination. For exam-ple, a company provides a CD that enahles a customer toreview products or services and then link directly to a Wehsite for more information or ordering. Similarly, a customermight buy a mail-order item through an automated tele-phone system but then track the delivery time for the pack-age through a Web site that provides automated package-tracking capahilities.

Companies provide SSTs for a variety of purposes broadlycaptured by the rows in Figure 1. First, many forms of cus-tomer service are now provided through technology. Questionsregarding accounts, bill paying, frequently asked questions,and delivery tracking are just a few examples of customer ser-vice that are now provided through SSTs. Some examples ofexcellence in this arena are FedEx's Internet-based packagetracking, Cisco Systetii's online trouhlcshot)ting. and WellsFargo Bank's telephone- and Internet-based banking.

A second extremely rapidly growing arena for SSTs isdirect transactions. The technology enables customers toorder, buy. and exchange resources with companies withoutany direct interaction with their employees. Exatnplcs of out-standing SST transactions are Charles Schwah's online trad-ing service. Amazon.com, and the SABRE Group's Trave-locity, an Internet-hased travel ticketing service. Recentstudies cite rapid growth in Internet-based transactions forhoth consumer and husiness-to-business sales (Hof 1999).

The third use of SSTs is the broad category called self-help, which refers to technoiogies that enahle customers tolearn, receive information, train themselves, and providetheir own services. Examples include health informationWeb sites, tax preparation CDs and software, self-helpvideos, and telephone-based information lines. In a busi-ness-to-husiness context, GE Medical Systems providesvideo and satcllite-television-based "just-in-time training""on its equiptnent for hospital and clinic customers, whichenahles customers to train themselves at their convenience.

FIGURE 1Categories and Examples of SSTs in Use

Service

Transactions

Self-Help

Telephone/interactive Online/Voice Response (nlernel Interactive Kiosks Video/CD*

•Tclcpluinc banking•Flight information•Order status

•Telephone banking•Prescription refills

•Information telephonelines

"Package tracking•Account int\)rniatit>n

•Retail purchasing•Financial transactions

•Internet informationsearch

•Distance learning

•ATMs•Hotel checkout

•Pay at the pump•Hotel eheekout•Car rental

•Blood pressure machines•Tourist information

•Tax preparationsoftware

•Television/CD-based training

* Video/CD is typically linked to other technologies to provide customer service and transactions.

52 / Journal of Marketing, July 2000

Figure I provides exatnples of SSTs across the purposesand types of technology interfaces just descrihcd. Althoughthe present-day excitement over Internet applications meansthat many companies arc channeling their resources into thatcolumn of the tiiatri.x, it is apparent that a wide range of SSTpossibilities exi.sts. In the research reported here, we exploreall types of SSTs without attempting to compare and con-trast specific cells within the matrix.

Customer Responses to SST EncountersGiven the prt)liferation of SSTs and the wide variety of typesand purposes of these SSTs, it is critical to understand howcustomers feel ahout them, how they use them, and if theywill use them in the future. This re.search represents a firststep in this direction hy exploring customer experiencesacross a hroad range of SSTs availahle in the marketplace.The primary focus of this study is the sources of dis/satisfac-tion underlying SST experiences. It is well established thatcustomer satisfaction can affect customer retention and prof-itability (Anderson and Forneli 1994: Mano and Oliver 1993;Oliver 1993, 1997; Price. Arnould. and Tierney 1995: Reich-held and Sasser 1990). Thus, understanding the underlyingfactors that trigger dis/satisfaction in SSTs has importantmanagerial implications for customer-firm relationships.

We also explore customer attributions with respect toSST outcomes. Research has shown that customer evalua-tions are influenced by attributions for success and failure ininterpersonal service situations (Bitner 1990: Folkes. Kolet-sky. and Grahatn 1987). With SSTs, customers create the ser-vice for themselves, so it is possihie that they will aceeptmore of the responsihility for the outcome (Mills. Chase, andMargulies 1983: ZeithamI 1981). If customers accept partialresponsihility in dissatisfying situations, they may be morelikely to use the SST in the future. Again, this could haveimportant managerial implications as companies developnew SSTs and struggle with service encounter failures.

We exatTiine important postencounter hehaviors. such ascomplaining, word of mouth, and future intended hehaviors.When a customer complains, the Ttrm has the opportunity torectify the situation and potentially create a more satisfied cus-tomer (Tax. Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998). Complaintsalso provide information that can he tjsed to fix service failurept)ints. Yet how can customers complain effectively in SSTsit-uations.' We also study the relationship between SST dis/sat-isfacticMi and future intentions such as repeat purchasing andword of mouth. How do these experiences affect future behav-iors? Do custtitTiers plan to use the specific company or theSST again? Because so little has been published on SSTs. weexplore these questions to further the understanding of thecomplexities surrounding customer interactions with SSTs.

Method and ProcedureCriticai incident TechniqueWe used CIT to investigate the sources of dis/satisfactoryevaluations of SST interactions.! This technique is a form ofctintent analysis that involves the classification of stories or

'For a review at CIT, sec Bitner. Booms, and Tetreault (1990),Grove and Fisk (1997). and Keaveney (1995).

critical incidents with the intent of uncovering emergent pat-terns or themes (Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault 1990). WithCIT. respondents are asked not to identify the cause of theirsatisfaction or dissatisfaction hut rather to describe a spe-cific incident in as much detail as possihie. Prior researchIndicates that people arc adept at describing these types ofstories (Bitner. Booms, and Tetreault 1990; Keaveney1995). For this study, we locus on eliciting descriptions ofmemorable incidents about a recent SST interaction.

As a qualitative methodology, CIT is meant not to hegenerali/ahle hut rather to provide insight into the nature ofthe phenomenon under investigation. Given this, most stud-ies using CIT focus exclusively on the categories that emergeand the characteristics of those categories. Although CIT cat-egories are rarely linked to any additional quantitative mea-sures (for an exception, see Hoffman. Kelley. and Rotalsky1995). in this research we incorporated a series of quantita-tive questions to gain a greater understanding of perceptionsof the incident as well as subsequent behavior. These quanti-tative measures enable us to explore further the nature of theresults and the perceptions and behavior of the respondents.

Data Coilection ProcedureBecause usage and experience with a wide range of SSTs isnot yet a common phenomenon, a simple random sample ofthe population would likely result in a sample with limitedSST experiences. The study descrihed here requires suffi-cient experience with SSTs st> respondents can draw on atleast one memorable encounter and describe it in detail. Inaddition, we wanted a nationwide sample of respondents toavoid any geographic hias or differences in regional avail-ahility of SST options. Because of this, a specific nation-wide audience that was expected to use a wide range ofSSTs was targeted for data collection. The population con-sisted of a datahase of respondents from a marketingresearch firm that specialized in consumer surveys over theInternet. We presumed that this p()pulation would have sub-stantially more experience with various SSTs than the gen-eral population. Although the sample may not be represen-tative of the general U.S. population, it addresses the needsof this study. In addition, this sampling approaeh enabled usto collect critical incident stories from a nationwide satiipleof consumers in a timely and cost-effective manner.

The datahase comprises more than one million peoplewho signed up and agreed to complete online surveys inexchange for cash prizes or other incentives. The surveyinstrument (to be described subsequently) was placed on aWeb site, and e-mail messages were sent to members of thedatahase notifying them of a new survey and requestingtheir participation. The survey notice was also placed in thefirm's ""open response" area, where any current tiiembercould complete the survey. A randotn drawing for ten $50.00cash prizes was held as an incentive to complete the survey.In less than two weeks. lOOO responses were collected elec-tronically. The survey was then removed from the Weh site,and the data were transferred to us for analysis.

Two concerns when an Internet-based survey is usedinclude respondents filling out a survey multiple times and"random walk-ins" (i.e.. people who are not part of the pop-ulation of interest) finding the Web site and completing the

Self-Service Technologies / 53

survey. The participating marketing research firm avoidsthese problems by assigning each database member a uniquepassword that is needed to complete a survey. Password pro-tection prevents users from completing the survey multipletimes and eliminates random walk-ins.

Questionnaire ContentThe questionnaire began by asking respondents to indicatetheir current level of u.se fora wide range of SSTs available inthe marketplace. The SSTs included in the survey were auto-mated airline ticketing machines, aut(»niated hotel checkout,automated car rental machines, package tracking, tax prepa-ration software, automated investment transactions, ATMs,automated telcpb(inc banking, other automaleJ telephone ser-vices {e.g., for Iligbt information). Internet shopping, generalInternet information searches, automated gamblingmachines, electric blood pressure machines, and pay-at-the-punip terminals. These SSTs were presented to famillari/xrespondents with the temi '"self-service technology" and pro-vide several examples. The list was developed to rellect across-section olSS'ls available in various industries with dif-ferent technology-based delivery methods (e.g.. telephone-based, computer-ba.sed). Respondents were then asked, on tbebasis of tbcir experience with ihe. e or any other SS'f optionsthey may have used, to "Think ot a time when, as a customer,you had what stands out in your mind as eitber a particularlysatislying or dissatisfying experience wiih a self-service tech-nology." To allow for a detailed incident description, respon-dents were free to select the SSTand were not restricted to theexamples provided. In addition, participants were able tochoose whether they wanted to describe a satisfactory or dis-satisfactory experience. The following questions were thenasked to elicit a detailed description of the incident:

•Which self-service tcclint)U)gy arc you Ibcusing on?•Was this a salislying or a dissalisfyiiiLi LWperiencL'?•Please describe ilie circumstances leaJing up tc ihis incidenl.•Describe what happened during the incident. What .specificdetails do you recall that matic this experience memorablefor you?

•Whiil was the outcome of the incident.'

•How could this experience have been improved (if at all)?

•Did you complain to the Unn about this incident? If yes, howdid you complain? If no. why not?

We asked additional questions to get a tnore completeunderstanding of the specific SST experience. We as.sesscdcustotner attributions using a single-item measure adaptedfrom Hubbert (1995). Whereas most attribution measurescategorize the cause as either internal or external, this sin-gle-item measure allows for assessments of joint attribu-tions. Respondents indicated whether they believed the out-come of the SST experience was due to tbe service firm orthe technology, lo their own actions, equally to both, or toneither. We also probed behavioral intentions pertaining tothe SST. Measures of the likelihood of participating inword-of-mouth behavior and repeat purchase intentionswere assessed through single-item tneasures for the type ofSST in general, the specific company's SST. and the specificcompany. We assessed these measures witb seven-point Lik-ert scales.

Data AnalysisCharacteristics of the SampleA total of I(MK) respondents completed the online question-naire. We eliminated 177 responses because they either werevague and lacked descriptive detail or did not address an expe-rience with a specific SST This resulted in a final sample of82. incidents—459 (56%) describing satisfactory encountersand 364 (44%) describing dissatisfactory encounters.

The sample of respondents was composed of slightlymore women (53%) than men (47%). The largest group ofrespondents was between the ages of 25 and 34 years (32% );however, those in tbe sample range from less than 18 tomore than 64 years of age. In terms of education. 43% of thesample had an associate's degree or a more advanced col-lege degree. The income distribution ranged frotn an annualincome of less than $15,000 (13%) to $75,O()() or more(15%). The most common income bracket represented wasbetween $35.(X)0 and $50,(K)0 (22%). Overall, the samplewas slightly ytiunger and had bighcr education and incomelevels than the general population. Note that though oursample may not be representative, tbe target population ofonline survey participants was purposely selected to meetthe needs of this study discussed previously.

Category Development and ReliabilityThree judges familiar with the topic of SSTs sorted tbe criti-cal incident responses into categories and subcategories thatrellected the sources of dis/satisfaction. Judges A and Bdeveloped a classification scheme that consisted of 13 mutu-ally exclusive and exhaustive categories for tbe 823 incidents.Judges A and B then independently classified cacb of the crit-ical incidents into the categories believed to derive customerdi.s/satisfaction with SSTs. All disagreements were resolvedthrough discussions. Judge C then sorted the 823 responseson the basis of the categories developed by Judges A and B.

The interjudge reliability between Judge C and Judges Aand B (a two-way comparison) was calculated usmg the per-centage agreement statistic. Interjudge reliability was 83%for the satisfying incidents and 85% for the dissatisfyingincidents. These figures aie respectably high, given that theresulting classification system in the study eontains 13 cate-gories. The percentage agreement statistic has been sbownto underestimate intcrjudgc reliability wben tbcre is a largenumber of categories (Perreault and Leigb 1989). Therefore,an alternate index of reliability, I,., was calculated. In con-trast to Ibe percent agreement statistic. I,, is based on a modelof the level of agreement that might be found given a true(population) level of reliability (Perreault and Leigb 1989).Another benefit of this index is that it focuses on the relia-bility of tbe whole coding process, not only on the agree-ment between judges. Between Judge C and Judges A and B,Ij. was .90 for both the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents.

ResultsThe most commonly described types of SSTs were ATMs,various Internet shopping services, pay-at-the-pump tcrini-nals. and various automated telephone services. AdditionalSSTs described in tbe study include automated hotel clieck-


out, package iracking, automated car rcnial pickup andrclurti. and online hrokerage services, atiiong others. Themain objective of a ciilical incident study is the classifica-tion of incidents into meaningful categories. The distribu-tioti 1)1 incidents across categories developed by the judgesis presented in Table I with illustrative quotes. Each cate-gory is described in more detail in the sections that follow.The sources of satislactory evaluations are discussed first,followed by a description of the sources of dissatisfactoryevaluations, in addition, results related to the quantitativemeasures are described.

Satisfying Incident Categories^Croup I: solved intoisified need. Of the satisfying inci-

dents, 11% involved the SST solving an intensified need.Intensified needs are defined as situations in which externalenvironmental factors add a sense of urgency to the transac-tion. Self-service technologies usually have wider availahil-ity and longer, more llexible hours of operation. Because ofthese characteristics, SSTs are often availahle to help cus-tomers Immediately solve a problem. Satisfaction was dri-ven by the SST's ability to hail customers out of a difficultsituation or solve the acute problem they were experiencing.For example, one respondent said, "My son had justwrecked my car and I needed cash to get it towed. The bankswere all closed, but I could get the money 1 needed in ahurry." In other incidents in this group, respondents detailedthe nature of the prohlem they were facing (e.g., "I was lowon gas in a really bad neighborhood and was scared.") andhow the SST helped alleviate their concerns.

Group 2: better than the attenmtive. For many of thesatisfying incidents (6S%), satisfaction with the SST wasdriven by the improvements or additional benefits providedby using the SST. In these incidents, customers perceivedthat the SST was a better alternative than the interperst)naltnctlu>d nf service delivery. The group is made up of six sub-categories, described subsequently, that highhght particularbenefits that appear to lead to satisfying SST serviceencoutiters.

Group 2A: easy to use. For some of the eneounters(16%). that the SST was easy to use or easier to use than theinterpersonal service option led to customer satisfaction.This category included incidents in which the SST wasdescribed as having simple or clear Instructions or astraightforward process. For example, one respondentdescribing an ATM encounter said. "I put my card in andfollowed the easy instructions—got my cash, my card, anda receipt. The experience was memorable because it waseasy."

Group 2B: avoid .service personnel. Of the satisfyingincidents, 3% involved respondents describing how the SST

-Seven .sali.- iynig incidents were calcgori/ed a.s niiseellaneousbecause they did not fit into any of the emergent categories and nocommon themes were identified among them. These 7 incidentswere subsequently dropped fnim the analysis, which left a finalsample of 816.

cnahled them to perform the service without having to inter-act with anyone (e.g.. "i really like being ahie to pay at theputnp and avoid moronic salespeople.") In many of thesecases, customers believed they could provide the servicemore effectively than firm employees. The benefit oi' usingself-service was that they did not have to interact with ser-vice personnel to achieve the service outcome.

Group 2C: saved time. This is the largest of the six sub-categories, making up 30% of the satisfying Incidents. Theseincidents focused on the desired outcome following espe-cially quickly after the transaction was perfortned. In addi-tion, the SSTs have also been described as allowing the actualtransaction to be perfortned more quickly or effieiently thandoes the interpersonal alternative. Fxatnples include inci-dents in which users were able to get information morequickly from the Internet than if they had to wait for it to bemailed. Additional comments illustrating the categoryinclude "I didn't have to wait in line" and "1 was in and outvery quickly." A user of bank services commented, "Thedrive-up windows to the bank were five cars deep at each one.The ATM line was empty, so I finished my business quickly."

Group 2D: when I want. This group, corresponding to8% of the .satisfymg incidents, includes incidents that focuson how the SST enabled the user to perform the service any-time, day or night (e.g., "I was able to use the Internet totrack a scheduled Oight. I felt in eontroi being able to trackthe night:" "While shopping for a new computer, I was ableto research all the options and check pricing online withinminutes. Best of all. it was 2 A.M.—the Internet is alwaysopen."). This usually was discussed as being importantbecause of limited service hours offered by the firm, therespondent having a difficult work schedule, or other factorsthat cause the user to need the particular service on demand.

Group 2E: where I want. In 5% of the incidents, theSST enabled users to perform the service from off-site loca-tions. Respondents appear pleased that they are not forced totravel to the service firm to consume a serviee. One respon-dent indicated. "I had left a large company with stocks froma 401 K plan. It seemed logical to be able to trade and makedecisions from anywhere. I do not have to go to an office orout of my way to be able to handle my money." Many inci-dents in this category describe situations in which the SSTenabled the user to obtain the service from home, from theoffice, on the road, or at other loeales.

Group 2F: saved money. In 6% of the incidents, theSST enabled users to save money by helping them get a bet-ter deal. A user of autotiiated ticketing stated. "I was able tobuy a ticket for a cheaper fare through autotiiated ticketingin comparison to calling a travel agent." Many firms offerfinancial incentives for consumers to use SSTs. These inci-dents include receiving various incentives for using SSTs,such as frequent fiyer miles or other financial benefits.

Group 3: did its job. Satisfaction in the third tnajorgroup of incidents revolved around the SST doing what itwas intended to do. For many users (21%!), satisfactionresults from the tnere fascination with the capabilities ofvarious SSTs and a sense of "Wow—it really works!" TTieseincidents are descriptions of what the SST dt>es when it is


TABLE 1Distribution of Incidents

Satisfying Incidents

Group Number and Name Illustrative QuotesPercentage

of Total

1. Solved intensified need

2. Better than the alternative

2A. Easy to use

2B. Avoid service personnel

2C. Saved time

2D. When I want

2E. Where I want

2F. Saved money

3. Did its job

"My ride to work didn't show up, and I had no money in my pocket. I had 11 %20 minutes to get to work. I went to the cash machine and got some cashfor the cab ride.... I made it to work 10 minutes late instead of not at all."

68%

"The page's forms were clear and easy to use. I had no difficulty deciding on 16%my purchase and going ahead with the order." (regarding purchasing rosesthrough the 1-800-FLOWERS Internet page)

"I like shopping on the Internet because there is no salesperson to bribe you." 3%

"I was on my way to a friend's house and was low on gas. I was in a huge 30%hurry, so using the pay at the pump saved me a lot of time."

"[I] was having a videotape of a house I was interested in putting an offer [on] 8%and was very anxious to get the tape so I could make my decision. [It was]convenient to be able to check on [the] parcel's whereabouts any time of dayor night."

"I can check out [library] books by phone without having to drive all the way 5%down to the library to renew them."

"I called around to several car agencies and was unable to get a price that was 6%within my range. I decided to try Alamo online. I entered the information andcame up with a price that was $20 less per week than when I had called them,"

"I needed gas ...[,which involved] inserting the card, selecting credit, pumping 2 1 %the gas, and then asking for a receipt. I received the gas I needed and wanted,and got a receipt."

Dissatisfying Incidents

Group Number and Name Illustrative QuotesPercentage

of Total

4. Technology failure

5. Process failure

6. Poor design

6A. Technology designproblem

6B. Service design problem

7. Customer-driven failure

"ATM broke down. It kept my card. I had to have the card reissued."

"After a month passed from placing my original order, I e-mailed the customerservice center at Disney with my order confirmation number. They had lost myorder. I reordered, only to be sent the incorrect merchandise twice."

"I was trying to order books from a book club online. The system was confusing,and I ordered two of the same title without knowing it."

"I did not realize that some (ATM) machines put limits on how much you can getout. The machine did not tell me I went over my limit for the day. It just spit mycard back out so I kept trying different amounts until I was able to get some cashout."

"I was attempting to get money from an ATM and couldn't remember my [personalidentification] number. I was leaving in one hour before the bank opened formainland Japan, and the machine took my card,"

43%

17%

36%

17%

19%

4%


working properly (e,i:,, " i knew there was a Milwaukee. Wl ,cheese shop online, I found their site, saw the pictures,picked out what 1 wanted, entered the information, andclicked on submit. Seven or eight days later it arrived asexpected."). Just having the SST do what it is supposed to dowas enough to satisfy these users. For example, I'or somerespondents, the fact that they could search for information(in the Internet and find it. track their shipped packagesonline, check their bank account balances online or t)ver thetelephone, or check out of a hotel from their rooms is whatmade interacting with the SST a satisfying experience.

Dissatisfying Incident CategoriesGroup 4: tecluiolof^x failure. The largest group of dis-

satisfying encounters involved technical failures (43%)due to the technology not working as intended. There wasa breakdown of delivery at the point at which the eus-tomer interacts with the technology. Typical examplesinclude a broken ATM or pay-at-the-pump machine.Another example comes from a user of Internet brokerageservice.s. who stated, " I tried to trade in my brokerageaccount, hut the system refused to log me on," These tech-nology failures can be especially frustrating for customerswho have come to rely on the ability to perform many ofthese transactions 24 hours a day from wherever theywant.

Group 5: process failure. In these incidents {[I'Vr), theSST functioned as designed, but tbere was a breakdown orfailure in the process after the customer-technology interac-tion occurred. These failures were eomrnonly related topost-SST interaction issues, such as hilling, delivery, or pro-cessing of a transaction. An example is a respondent whonever received a product alter it was successfully orderedand paid for over the Internet. These incidents (ended toI'ocus on a mistake that would he unlikely to happen if iheSST was used again in the future. For example, a telephonehanking customer said his dissatisfaction resulted Irom "awrong account number entered by the bank, causing [the]company to say I had not paid their bill,"" These failures canhe disturbing, because the customer has no idea the transac-tit)n was not performed properly until later, when problemsarise.

Group 6.' poor desifin. Several incidents (36%) dealtwith prohlems involving the design of the service experi-ence. These were aspects of the service built into the systemsuch that any customer using the SST would be confrontedwith the same issue (though not all customers will perceivethe design as dissatisfying). These incidents were furtherdivided into two suhcategories: technology design problemsand service design problems.

Group 6A: technology design problem. TTiis category ismade up of 17Vc of the dissatisfactory incidents. In thesecases, the SST was functioning as designed, hut the technol-ogy performed in such a way that the user was unhappy withthe encounter (e.g,, "Hard to figure out bow to log off the ser-vice. If it is not done properly, the next person who calls canget your account information."). Incidents in this categoryfocused on problems such as Internet applications or auto-mated telephone systems being too slow or having unclear

directions and the user not being able to navigate the systemor talk in person with a customer service representative.

Group 6B: service design problem. Tbis category, con-sisting of \9% of the dissatisfying incidents, includes situa-tions in which the SST interface functioned as planned butthere was some other aspect of the design of the rest of theservice that respondents did not like. In one incident, anonline shopper said. " I was buying a present fora friend thatlives far away. They would only deliver it to the cardholderaddress." Other respondents discussed incidents m which ittook too long for money put into an ATM to be credited totheir account, fees were charged for using the SST. or therewere rules set by the service firm that limited how fre-quently the technology could be used. Contrary to theprocess failure category, these service design problems donot entail an actual breakdown or failure, because the trans-action is processed according to the SST's design.

Group 7: customer-driven failure. In a small number ofinstances (4%), customers seemed to acknowledge that thefailure of the SST occurred, at least in part, because of theirown actions (e.g., "With the assistance calls for some Inter-net providers, the categories seem the same, I needed belp,so I called, I've misdiaied the correct connection and had tocall back."). Customers occasionally realize that their ownactions may have contributed to the dissatisfactory outcome.Additional examples include a respondent who Ibrgot hispersonal identification number, which made it impossible tocomplete an ATM transaction, and others who discussed howa demagnetized card prevented them from using the ATM.

Consumer Reactions to the SST ExperienceFrequently, studies using CIT report and discuss only the qual-itative categories that emerge frt)ni the data. By including aseries of quantitative measures to elieit additional informationrelated to the incident, we can link the qualitative categories toother consumer evaluations and behaviors. Tlic following sec-tions link measures of attributions, complaining, and futurebehaviors (such as repeat usage and word of moutb) witb thequalitative categories developed previously. These quantitativemeasures and their relationsbip to the critical incident cate-gories help us suppt)rt and more fully develop the findings andconclusions drawn from the critical incident data. As discussedpreviously, because of the nonrandom nature of tbe data, tbequantitative results are not intended to be generalizahle; rather,the fmdings represent characteristics of this sample.

Attributions. We investigated attributions to determine ifdis/satisfying incidents are related to differences in attribu-tions for the outcotTie. A chi-square analysis was performedto examine the relationsbip between incident satisfactionlevel (satisfying versus dissatisfying) and tbe nature of theattribution made for the outcome (i.e., tbe outcome was dueto the respondent, to tbe technology or service provider,equally to each, or to neither). We found a signillcant rela-tionship between incident satisfaction level and the type ofattribution (x- = 72,36, /; < .001),

Most respondents attributed the outcome tt) the technol-ogy (63%). It is not surprising that custotners recognize thecritical role that technology plays in affecting service out-comes. Twenty-nine percent of all incidents were satisfying


situations in which the positive outcome was attributed tothe technology, whereas 34% of all incidents were dissatis-fying situations in which the negative outcome was attrib-uted to the technology. Although more respondents attrib-uted the outcome to the technology for dissatisfactory thansatisfactory encounters, this difference is only marginallysignificant (%- = 3.3, p < .069). Respondents attributed amuch smaller percentage of incident outcomes to them-selves (6%). More respondents attributed the outcome tothemselves for satisfactory incidents (4%) than dissatisfac-tory incidents (2%), Again, although the results appear toindicate that respondents take credit for positive outcomesand assess blame for negative outcomes, the difference isonly marginally significant (x^ = 3.0, p < ,083).

Additional insight into consumer attributions comes fromrespondents who cited both themselves and technology asequally responsible for the outcome. Overall. 25% of therespondents attributed the outcome equally to themselvesand the technology. Twenty percent were satisfying incidentsin which respondents attributed the outcome to both equally,whereas only 5% were dissatisfying incidents (^-i = 74.6,p < ,0001). This indicates that the respondents take credit fortheir role in creating positive outcomes yet assign blame else-where for dissatisfactory outcomes. A small percentage of therespondents (6%) indicated that neither the technology northemselves were responsible for the outcome. Three percentwere satisfying incidents, and 3% were dissatisfying inci-dents. Overall, the attribution findings indicate that respon-dents tend to blame the technology or the service providermore often when things go wrong (which may be reasonablegiven the large percentage of technology failures that weredescribed) hut tend to take at least some of the credit whenthe encounter is concluded in a satisfactory manner.

Complaining. Given the considerable interest in study-ing complaining behavior (Oliver 1997; Tax, Brown, andChandrashekaran 1998). it is important to understand theextent and nature of complaining that occurs in the SSTcon-text. The relationship between incident satisfaction level andcomplaining behavior was examined, and a significant rela-tionship between the two was found (X'[ = 254.1, ;J < .001).As would be expected, few satisfying incidents led to com-plaints (n = 8). Satisfactory incident "complaints" are bestdescribed as suggestions for improving some aspect of theservice rather tban true complaints regarding the quality ofthe service that was provided. Of the dissatisfying incidents,51% of the respondents subsequently complained. This issomewhat higher than other studies that examine complain-ing, in which the percentage of dissatisfied customers whocomplain is often 40% or less (Heskett, Sasser, andSchlesinger 1997; Technical Assistance Research ProgramsInstitute 1986).

To explore this relatively high complaining rate, com-plaining behavior was examined across dissatisfactory cate-gories. The relationship between complaining and the dis-satisfying incident categories was found to be significant(X~ = 2\.14.p< .001), whieh indicates that the level of com-plaining differs significantly depending on the source of dis-satisfaction. Of the five dissatisfactory groups (technologyfailure, process failure, technology design, service design,and customer-driven failure), three exhibit complaining

rates greater than 50%. Of respondents describing incidentsrelated to process failure, 68% indicated that tbey com-plained to the firm about their SST experiences. Fifty-fivepercent of the technology failure and 51% of the servieedesign incidents also resulted in a complaint to the servicefirm. The other two groups generated fewer complaints.Only 30% of the respondents describing technology designincidents complained, whereas 25%i of the respondentsdescribing customer-driven failures complained.

Of the 188 respondents who complained about their SSTexperiences. 147 (78%) specified how they communicatedtheir dissatisfaction to the firm. Of those, 43% contacted acustomer service representative by telephone, and 40% vi'entto the service facility to discuss their displeasure. Twelvepercent sent an e-mail message or complained through aWeb page, and 5% wrote a complaint letter.

Wordof mouth and repurchase. A factor analysis of theword-of-mouth and repurchase intention items indicatedthat there was one factor composed of six items labeledfuture behaviors (a = .93),^ These items assess futurebehaviors (i.e., word of mouth, repurchase intentions) withrespect to the company described in the encounter and thespecific company's SST, as well as the word-of-mouth andrepurchase intentions directed at the general type of SSTdescribed in the incident. For future behaviors, there was amain effect of incident satisfaction level (F| 794 = 472,46,p < .0001), Not surprisingly, respondents were tnore likelyto engage in positive future behaviors for satisfying inci-dents (X = 6.42) than for dissatisfying ones (X = 4.21).

No differences were found in future behaviors across thesatisfying incident categories (F7 43 = .35,/7< .93). It appearsthat repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth behavior forthese respondents are not affected hy the reason an encounterwas satisfying. However, future behavior may be influencedby what caused an encounter to be dissatisfying. Tbere was amain effect across the dissatisfying categories (F4j4y = 7,12,p< ,0001). Respondents were more likely to engage in posi-tive future behaviors wben there had been a technojogy fail-ure (X = 4.62) or the failure was custqrner driven (X = 5.92)than when there was a process fa ilure (X - 3.83. both/?< .05),a technology design problem (X = 3.85; Aechnoiogy failure versus

technology design *~ •""* Pcosiomer-driven failure versus technology design ^

.05), or a service design problem (X = 3.66, both p < .05).

Discussion and ImplicationsIn the following section, we discuss our research findings asthey relate to the three research questions guiding our inves-tigation. In our discussion of each question, we also high-light the managerial implications of our results.

Sources of Satisfaction or Dissatisfaction in SSTEncountersOur primary goal in this research was to investigate thesources of dis/satisfaction with SSTs. Through the criticalincident investigation, we found three major groups of fac-tors leading to a satisfactory evaluation of an SST experi-

•'One of the word-of-mouth items was dropped because of poorloadings.


ence and four major groups of factors leading to a dissatis-factory evaluation of an SST experience.

The classification of the satisfying incidents indicatesthat tor several of the incidents described, satisfaction is dueto the SST's ability to bail customers out of immediate ortroubling situations. Self-service technologies are ideallysuited to handle many of these types of situations because oftheir pervasive nature and relatively easy accessibility. Areadily accessible SST provides a valuable advantage overcompetitors not offering SST alternatives. Understandingthe types of intense or immediate needs customers mayexperience should help managers effectively design andposition their SSTs relative to competitors.

The second and largest major category for satisfying inci-dents is the relative advantage that customers perceive they getfrom using an SST. These benefits received are typicallyviewed hy customers in comparison with interpersonal servicedelivery alternatives. Although these advantages (e.g,, time,ease of use, access) can be emphasized by companies toincrease SST usage and generate satisfaction, customer per-ceptit)ns of SST benefits may also be an indicator of the failureof service providers to satisfy customers through traditionalfonns of interpersonal service delivery. This is highlighted inthe incidents in which respondents discussed using SSToptions to avoid interacting with service employees. Althoughthis sentiment was expressed by a relatively small percentageof the sample, it suggests that some consumers believe they aretiiore effective at producing the service than an employee whohas (hopefully) been trained to deliver the service. That somecustomers perceive frontline employees as a nuisance to beavoided highlights the hiring and training problems that someservice organizations may currently be experiencing. Theseproblems may lead to less loyalty and increased switchingbehavior, especially if higher-quality personal service isoffered by competing firms. Our findings are consistent withgeneral perceptions of declining service that have been docu-mented by national studies that measure customer satisfaction(Grant 1998). Self-service technologies may provide a way forcustomers to avoid this declining service and produce and con-sume on their own, at their own convenience.

The third major satisfactory category, "did its job," con-sists of many incidents that simply described the technologydoing what it was intended tt) do. Many consumers are stillfascinated with the eapability of various SSTs and seempleasantly surprised when the SSTs perform successfully,because many SSTs are still in their infancy. Therefore, thenovelty of the technology and its ability to perform theseservices may be satisfying. After the novelty wears off, it ispossible that expectations will increase, thereby making sta-tus quo interactions with SSTs less satisfying to consumers.This may lead to more competition among firms with simi-lar SSTs and provide a greater incentive for firms to improvetechnology interfaces and SST capabilities and expand SSTservice offerings for customers.

The first and largest dissatisfactory group, technologyfailure, includes situations in which customers are preventedfrom using the service. The difficulty of implementingeffective serviee recovery efforts in SST contexts is espe-cially evident during technology failures. Customers whoare ct)nlronted with a technology failure have several

options, none of which is beneficial to the service firm.First, customers may be driven to switch service providers.A second option is to revert to the interpersonal deliveryalternative. This transfer from technology-based transac-tions to interpersonal encounters may overload service firmemployees or increase waiting times for other customers. Inaddition, interpersonal transactions are generally moreexpensive for firms than transactions conducted through anSST, Finally, consumers may simply decide not to use theservice or to use it at a later date. This would either elimi-nate potential revenue or at the very least delay revenue to alater time period. This source of dissatisfaction indicates iheimportance of regular maintenance for SSTs, Just as contin-ual training and investment in frontline employees helpsimprove service delivery, SSTs must receive ongoing main-tenance to ensure continued effectiveness.

In this study, many of the dissatisfying incidents werecau.sed by process failures. Although the technology is work-ing properly, in these incidents there is a breakdown at somepoint after the SST encounter has occurred but before the ser-viee consumption has been completed. The process failurecategory highlights the ability of the addition of technologyto improve service delivery only to the extent that the rest ofthe service process is implemented effectively. The danger ofthis type of failure is that the customer assumes that the trans-action will be completed as expected, which may cause sig-nificant complications when the failure becomes apparent.

The dissatisfying incidents also suggest that poor design isa signiHcant prt)blem for both the technology interface andother aspects of the service process. Technological tools,specifically SSTs, are used to their full advantage only whenthey are designed with customer needs in mind and fully inte-grated into the design of the overall service. One way to reducethese types of failures is to include customers in the design ofthe SST and the corresponding service process. Merely inte-grating technology without regard to customer needs oc inte-grating technology into a faulty system is a recipe for disaster.

The last dissatisfaetory category, customer-driven fail-ure, indicates that customers are willing to take sotne of theblame when dissatisfying encounters with SSTs occur. Thissuggests that users of SSTs are aware that their interactionswith the SST influence the nature of the outcome they expe-rience. It is in a firm's best interest to understand what mis-takes eustomers make that may lead to these dissatisfyingoutcomes. This alk)ws steps to be taken to help customershelp themselves. Continually acquiring customer feedbackand providing extensive SS'f training are two ways to limitthe impact of customer-driven failures.

SST Versus interpersonal Encounter SatisfactionAnother goal of this project, rellected in the second researchquestion, is to compare the categories found for SST serviceencounters with the sources of dis/satisfaction found ininterpersonal service encounters. The three main sources ofdis/satisfaction with interpersonal service encounters men-tioned previously are (1) response to service delivery fail-ure, (2) response to customer needs, and (3) unprt)nipted orunsolicited actions (Bitner, Bootns. and Tetreault 1990).These can be considered more broadly as the followingthree drivers of memorable satisfying incidents: excellent


service recovery, customization/flexibility, and spontaneousdelight, respectively. These categories differ greatly fromthose found for service encounters involving SSTs.

Research examining interpersonal service encountersclearly demonstrates that successful recovery in the wake ofa service delivery failure is satisfying to customers, whereasa failure to recover is highly dissatisfying (Tax. Brown, andChandrashekaran 1998). In our researeh, recovery did notemerge as a source of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Onepossible reason is that recovery rarely occurs in SST con-texts, becau.sc most firms have not figured out how torecover effectively. Therefore, none of our respondentsmentioned an act of recovery when describing a satisfyingincident. However, failures were the focus of all of dissatis-fying SST encounters. Therefore, at some level, each ofthese failures represents a missed opportunity for servicerecovery. The results suggest that firms that employ SSTscould do a great deal more in the area of service recoveryand should take steps to ensure that customers have theknowledge and motivation to use technology to recoverwithout help when possible.

In addition to serviee recovery, the interpersonalencounter research highlights how dis/satisfaetion is associ-ated with service employees' ability to customize the ser-vice. Customers appreciate service providers" ability toadapt and adjust elements of the service in real time duringservice delivery to meet consumers' needs and are dissatis-fied when employees cannot do so (Bettencourt and Gwin-ner 1996), In our research, customization did not emerge asa source of satisfaction for SSTs per se. However, .several ofthe satisfying incidents focused on benefits of using an SSTthat are aspects of service customization (i.e.. can get the ser-vice "when 1 want" and "where I want"). In addition, someof the design problems associated with dissatisfying inci-dents could be viewed as a lack of customization. Therefore,although the theme of customization is not as pronounced inour results, we can see hints of it in the responses. We antic-ipate that the impact of customization on satisfaction will bemuch stronger in the future, because we can readily realizethe great possibilities of eustomization when we considerInternet retailers such as Amazon.com, which allows cus-tt)mers to search for books (among other things) how theywant, get the type of information (e.g., reviews, excerpts)tbey desire, and even choose how they pay (e.g., online ver-sus over the telephone), all of which are forms of cus-tomization. To compete effectively in the future, firms willneed to continue to find innovative ways to customize SSTsto meet the changing needs and preferences of customers.

The third driver of dis/satisfaction that emerges in inter-personal encounter research involves unsolicited actions onthe part of an employee. In a positive .sense, spontaneousdelight occurs when an employee provides a customer withan unexpectedly pleasing experience (Oliver, Rust, andVarki 1997), In the context of SSTs. instead of experiencingspontaneous delight, customers appear to be highly dissatis-fied with unexpected technical failures. On a more positivenote, the "did its job" category could be interpreted as anexample of spontaneous delight in that this group of cus-tomers was amazed at what the SST could do. Although thissource of satisfaction is likely to be Heeting as customers

become more sophisticated users of SSTs. SSTs have thepotential to delight a broad spectrum of customers. Ourresults show that being able to save money or get perks canbe satisfying for customers. We also find leading-edge com-panies, such as Cisco Systems, succeeding at delightingtheir customers, Cisco has developed an award-winningexpert system that aids eustomers in problem identificationand resolution, which resuhs in customers being amazed atwhat they can accomplish by themselves.

With the advent of new technology and the evolution ofSSTs, SSTs are likely to be developed that have the capabil-ity to mimic and/or surpass the positive aspects of interper-sonal encounters in the future. For example, it is not difficultto imagine a time when companies will have systetns in placethat not only monitor if and how an SST is functioning butalso prevent failures before they happen and/or provide real-time service recovery for customers as they interact with anSST. This is similar in many respects to what firms such asCaterpillar and Xerox already do in anticipating equipmentbreakdowns through remote monitoring systems. The poten-tial of customization for Internet-based SSTs has alreadybeen demonstrated clearly by a handful of leading firm.s.Given that technology enables firms to know more abouttheir custotners (i.e., their preferences and past behavior), itis expected that mass customization will become increas-ingly common. It also creates an endless array of possibilitiesfor dehghting customers in highly customized, unique ways.For example, given their knowledge of customers, firmscould send unsolicited, personally relevant information tocustomers or provide rewards (e.g.. discounts) that would behighly valued by a particular customer, A current example ofthis is Ama/on.com, which notifies customers when a newbook is available in a preferred book category.

Consumer Reactions to the SST ExperienceThe third research question we investigated was the naturet)f relationships between the encounter and measures ofattributions, complaining, and future behaviors such asrepeat purchase and word of mouth. Our results indicate thatusers of SSTs are most likely to attribute the outcome of theencounter to technology, and more respondents do so for adissatisfying than a satisfying encounter. Only a small per-centage of respondents cited themselves as responsible forthe outcome, though they were more likely to do so for sat-isfying versus dissatisfying incidents. In addition, the out-come was attributed equally to both technology and the userin significantly more satisfying encounters than in dissatis-fying encounters. Thus, although respondents produce theservice themselves, few translate their involvement intoself-blame when things go wrong. This finding furtheremphasizes the need to prevent service failure and educatecustomers on their roles, because they are unlikely to sharein the blame if the .service fails.

The percentage of customers willing to complain inresponse to a dissatisfying encounter with an SST appears tobe somewhat higher for some of the dissatisfaction cate-gories than has been documented elsewhere in the literature(see Heskett, Sasser. and Schlesinger 1997; Technical Assis-tance Research Programs Institute 1986). In three of the fivedissatisfactory categories, at least 50% of the customers


complained. Closely examining complaint rates across dis-satisfactory categories provides insight into the high com-plaint rates in SST encounters.

The two categories resulting in the highest levels ofcomplaining are technology failures and process failures.Technology failures, such as machines being out of order,typically force consumers to complain in order to conductthe transaction. In process failures, the actual SST encounterworked as expected, but the underlying process failed at alater point. Process failures are especially troubling, becausethe consumer has completed the SST interaction and expectsthe transaction to be processed successfully. However, whenthe encounter is not completed, the customer must complainto resolve the situation (e.g., items are purchased throughthe Internet but are never received). Service design prob-lems also resulted in complaints from a majority of therespondents. Customers may perceive these service designprohlems to be more easily fixed and therefore believe thatcomplaining to the firm may result in service designchanges.

In addition, SST failures are frequently more objectiveand obvious than failures in an interpersonal servieeencounter. In interpersonal encounters, dissatisfaction maybe ambiguous; for example, a customer may have anunpleasant experience with the provider, but the service isstill provided. In technologically based encounters, failuresare often more apparent, which results in little ambiguityregarding whether a failure actually occurred.

As is expected, when customers perceive that they are atfault for the encounter failure (customer-driven failures),complaint rates are relatively low. Encounters in which tech-nology design problems were cited as reasons for the dissat-isfactory experience also generated low complaint rates. Itappears that consumers are unhappy with the way the tech-nological interface has been designed but, perhaps becauseof the perceived intlexibility, believe that complaining willnot result in any changes in the design of the technology.Furthermore, they are typically ahle to complete the trans-action and therefore are not forced to cotnplain as in othercategories.

The beneficial implications of higher complaint rates areimportant lo consider. First, customer complaints enablefirms to adapt SST systems proactively to prevent futurefailures. Second, complaining customers provide firms theopportunity to prevent service switching by customers whoare unhappy with their SST experience. When eomplaintsare made, it is important for firms to address the issuesquickly to prevent this service switching (Tax and Brown1998; Tax, Brown, and Chandrashekaran 1998).

Overall, the level of complaining is rather high, espe-cially considering that in tnany cases it Is difficult to find anavenue to complain when a prt)blem arises. Results showthat complaining often was done interpersonally. Note thatwhen a failure occurred, H7>% of the respondents who com-plained contacted the firm either in person or over the tele-phone. In these cases, the value of using an SST is lost forboth the customer and the firm, A failure necessitates that acustomer service representative handle an additional cus-tomer interaction that should have been successfully accom-plished by the SST, Relatively few customers (12%) use

electronic approaches to voice their displeasure with theSST or the service experience. It is critical for service firmsto provide an array of avenues (both interpersonal and tech-nological) for SST users to contact them easily and quicklyto lodge a complaint or suggestion.

The type of the failure differentially affects the futurebehavior of eustomers. Even after dissatisfactory experi-ences, some respondents indicated that positive futurebehaviors were likely. Respondents were more likely to usethe same company's SST in the future and recommend it toa friend when there had been a technology failure than whenother types of failures occurred. There seems to be someunderstanding that these problems are likely to occur at leaston occasion, and customers are more forgiving in these sit-uations. Respondents were also more likely to exhibit posi-tive future behaviors when they had played a role in creat-ing a negative outcome than when there was a mistake in theprocess or sotne type of technology or service design prob-lem. Given that design problems may be perceived as per-manent and more likely to continue to influence the out-come of the encounter, we find more customers who are notrecommending the company's SST and not using it againwhen they view design problems as the reason lor the pooroutcome. This indicates that these types of failures may beparticularly important for service firms to avoid because ofthe serious consequences they have for customer ioyalty.

Conclusions and Future ResearchDirections

Technology has become an integral part of the marketplace.Customers are increasingly given the option or are beingasked to provide services for themselves through the u.se ofSSTs. It is important tor providers of SSTs to understandhow customers evaluate SSTs st) that the firms can improvethem. In this research, we have identified .several factors thatappear to inlluencc dis/satisfaction with technology-basedservice encounters. These factors can therefore provideinsight for firms that currently offer or are planning to offeran SST as an alternative method of service delivery.

Although the Web-based sample was appropriate for thisstudy and provides substantial benefits, the sample presentslimitations that should be addressed in further research. It ispossible that the participants in the online survey have agenerally more positive attitude toward SSTs than the gen-eral population. This bias could prevent additional cate-gories from being identified. In addition, these respondentsmay have different reactions to the SST encounter than asample that included less experienced SST users. For exam-ple, respondents with less SST experience tnay be morelikely to biame themselves for a failure or less likely tocomplain about a failure. However, the large sample ofmore than 800 respondents may help limit the effects of thisbias. In addition, although a nationwide sample was col-lected, the respondents were not randomly selected. Theywere reached through panel membership in an Internet-based marketing research firm, which limits the generatiz-ability of the findings.

There are several important avenues for further researchin this area, Althou"h in this research the focus was end


users of SSTs, the fastest growing segment of technologi-cally related transactions is in the business-to-businessrealm (Hof 1999), Because SSTs are also increasingly beingintroduced in business-to-business contexts, their usageshould be examined to determine what drives dis/satisfac-tion for business customers, in addition, the way SSTs canhelp or hinder the development of alliances between busi-ness partners could be investigated.

A contribution of the current study is its exploration of awide range of SSTs, as suggested in Figure 1, Given thedesign of our study and the current level of usage for manySSTs, we did not attempt to draw explicit comparisons acrossthe different types of SSTs represented by the matrix. This isanother avenue for further research. For example, are thereinherent differences in how customers prefer to use and howthey react to SSTs designed for customer service purposesversus those designed to facilitate transactions? Similarly, arethere underlying differences in how customers respond totelephone-ba.sed versus Internet-based SSTs? Whereas ourstudy was designed to examine the range of SSTs to assessunderlying similarities, further research could be designedspecifically to allow comparison of the cells within the matrix.

Given the proliferation of SSTs being introduced, it isalso important to understand the factors that iniluence adop-tion of technology-based service delivery options. Researchon customer participation suggests that role clarity, motiva-tion, and customer ability are important factors affectingcustomer participation in service delivery (Bowen 1986;Schneider and Bowen 1995). Research could examine whatmotivates people to use an SST. how they go about learningtheir role as it relates to interacting with an SST. and what

factors limit perceived ability to interact with SSTs. Provid-ing customers with an opportunity to learn their role is espe-cially important given that service employees usually arenot present to educate or train customers in SST settings.Understanding these factors will help managers gain insightinto how to get customers to use currently underused SSTsas well as to adopt new SST innovations.

Finally, additional research is needed to examine theimplications that arise from the inherent characteristics ofSSTs, For example, how should a firm go about developingtrust with customers when there is an absence of humancontact? How does the lack of human contact affect loyalty.and what are the determinants of service loyalty regardingSSTs? Is it easier for customers to switch, and if so. how canloyalty be built into these situations? Last, the difficultyassociated with service recovery .should be explored. Specif-ically, what does service recovery mean and how can it beimplemented in the SST context? Greater Insight into theseand other issues will enable companies to make the mosteffective use of their SSTs,

Effective management of SST delivery options can be anexcellent means of creating a competitive advantage. Thisresearch represents a first step in better understanding theoverall evolution of SSTs, Currently. SSTs generally providealternative service delivery channels, yet additional devel-opment could meld the benefits of tecbnologically basedencounters with the benefits of interpersonal encounters,sucb as adaptability. When these delivery options are hetterunderstood, effective management of these channels mayincrease profitability and success in the increasingly cotTi-petitive marketplace.

REFERENCESAndcrsun, Eugene W, and Clacs Fornell (1994). -A Customer Sat-

i.sfaction Research Prospectu.s." in SeiTicc Quality: New Direc-tions in Tlieoiy and Practice. Roland T, Rust and RicharJ L.Oliver, eds. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications. 241-68,

Batcson. J,E,G, (1983). "Self-Scrvicc Consumer: An ExploratoryStudy." Joiiriml of Retailing, 61 (Fall). 49-76,

Bettencourt. Lance and Kevin Gwinncr (1996), "Customization of theService Experience: The Role of the Frontline Employee." Inler-naiional Journal in Si'fvices buhtstry Mcinagenieni, 1 (2). 2-20,

Bitner. Mary Jo (1990), '"Evaluating Service Encounters: TheEffects of Physical Surroundings And Employee Responses."Journal of Markciing. 54 (April). 69-82,

. Bernard H, Booms, and Lois A, Mohr (1994). "•Service Encounters: The Employee's View." Journal of Mar-keting. 58 (October). 95-IOfr

-. and Mary Stanfield Tetreault (1990). "The Ser-vice Encounter: Diagnosing Favtirable and Unfavorable h\c'\-

t^," Journal of Markciing, 34 (January). 71-84,-, Stephen W, Brown, and Matthew L, Meuier (2000).

'Technology Intusion in Service Encounters," Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science. 28 ( I ) . 138^9.

Bowen, David E. (1986). "Managing Customers as HumanResources in Service Organizations," Human Resource A/fi/i-flgf'//!*'/!/. 25 (Fall). 371-83.

Clcmmer. Elizabeth C, and Benjamin Schneider (1996). "Fair Ser-vice." in Advances in Sen'ices Marketing and Management,Vol, 5, Teresa A, Swart/. David E, Bowen and Stephen W,Brown, eds, Greenwich. CT: JAI Press, 109-126.

Copas. Ernestine M, (1984). "Critical Requirements for Cooperat-ing Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education. 35 (6), 49-54,

Dahholkar. Pratibha A, (1992). "Role of Altect and Need lor Inter-action in On-Site Service Encounters," in Advances in Con-sumer Research. Vol. 19. John F, Sherry and Brian Sternthal.eds. Prove UT: Association for Consumer Research. 563-69,

(1994). "Technology-Based Service Delivery: A Clas.sitl-cation Scheme for Developing Marketing Strategies." inAdvances in Seirices Marketing and Management, Vol. 3,Teresa A, Swartz. David E. Bowen. and Stephen W, Brown,eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 241-71,

(1996). "Con.sumer Evalualions in New Technology-BasedSelf-Service Options: An Investigation of Alternative Modelsof Service Quality." hiteinaiional Journal of Researeh in Mar-keting. 13(1). 29-51,

Darian. Jean C, (1987), "In-Home Shopping: AreThere ConsumerSegments?" Journal of Retailing, 63 (2). 163-86.

Eastlick, Mary Ann (1996). "Consumer Intention to Adopt Interac-tive Telcshopping." Marketing Science Inslilule Working PaperNo. 96-113. Cambridge. MA: Marketing Science Institute,

Fischer, Eileen, Brenda Gainer, and Julia Bristor (1997). "The Sexof the Service Provider: Does It Influence Perceptions of Ser-vice Quality?" Journal of Retailing, 73 (3). 361-82,

Fisk. Raymond P. Stephen W, Brown, and Mary Jo Bitner (1993),"Tracking the Evolution of the Services Marketing Literature,"Journal of Retailing. 69 (1), 61-103,

Flanagan. John C, (1954). "The Critical incident Technique," Psy-chological Ihdlelm, 5! (July). 327-57,

Polkes, Valerie S., Susan Koletsky, and John L Graham (1987), "AField Study of Causal Inferences and Consumer Reaction: TheView from the Airport," Journal of Consumer Reseaivh, 13(March). 534-39,


Gibson. Richard (1999). "Machine Takes Orders in Test byMcDonald's," Walt Street Journal. (August II). B I,

Goodwin. Cathy (1996), "Communallty as a Dimension of ServiceRelationships," Journal of Consumer Psvchologv, 5 (4),387-^15,

and Dwayne D, Gremler (1996). "Friendship Over theCounter: How Social Aspects of Service Encounters IntluenceConsumer Service Loyalty," in Advances in Senices Marketingand Management, Vol, 5, Teresa A. Swartz, David E, Bowen,and Stephen W, Brown, eds, Greenwich. CT: JAI Pre.ss.247-82,

Grant, Linda (1998), "Your Customers Arc Telling the Trtiih." For-tune, (February 18). 164.

Greco, Alan J. and D, Michael Fields (1991), "Profilmg Early Tri-ers of Service Innovatitins: A Look al Interaction Home VideoOrdering Services." Journal of Services Marketing. 5 (3),19-26,

Grove. Stephen J and Raymond P Fisk (1997). "The Impact ofOther Customers on Service Experiences: A Critical IncidentExamination of 'Geilini; Along,'" Journal of Reiailim;, 73 (I).217-24,

Hartline. Michael D. and O.C, Ferrell (1996) "The Management ofCustomer-Contact Service Employee.*;: An Empirical Investiga-tion." Journal of Marketing. 60 (October), 52-70,

Heskett, James L,. W, Earl Sasser Jr. and Leonard A, Schle.singer(1997). The Sen'ice Profit Chain. New York: The Free Pre.ss.

Hoi. Robert D, (1999). "A New Era of Bright Hopes and TerribleFears." BusinessWeek. (October 4). 84-98,

Hotlman, K, Douglas. Scott W. Kelley. and Holly M, Rotalsky(1995), "Tracking Service Fiiikires and Employee RecoveryEfforts." Journal ofSeivices Marketing. 9 (2). 49-61.

Hubbert. Amy R, (1995), "Customer Co-creation of Service Out-comes: Effects of Locus of Causality Attributions," doctoraldissertation. Chemistry Department, Arizona State University,

lacobucci. Dawn. Amy Ostrom. and Kent Grayson (1995), "Distin-guishing Service Quality and Customer SalLsfaction: The Vtiice ofthe Consumer." Journal of Consumer P.n'ehologv, 4 (3 ) . 277-303,

Keaveney. Su,san M. (1995). "Customer Switching Behavior inService Industries: An Exploratory Study." Journal of Market-ing. 59 (Apn\).l\-'fi2.

Langeard. Eric, John Bateson. Christopher H, Lovelock, andPierre Eiglier(198l), "Service.s Marketing: New Insights fromCon.sumers and Managers." Report No. HI-104. Cambridge,MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Lathan. Gary and Lise M, Saari (1984). "Do People Do What TheySay? Further Studies on the Situaiional Interview," Journal ofApplied R^ychologx. 69 (4), 569-73,

Lawrence, Philip and John Karr (1996). "Technology Spending—and Alliances: New High.s in Financial Services Firms." Jour-nal of Retail Banking Services. 17 (3). 45-52,

Mano, Haim and Richard L. Oliver (1993). "Assessing the Dimen-sionality and Structure of Consuinption Experience: Evalua-tion, Feeling, and Satisfaction." Journal of Consumer Research.20 I December). 451-66,

Martin, Charles L. and Charles A, Pranter (1989), "CompatibilityManagement: Ctistomer-to-Customer Relationships in ServiceEnvironments," Journal of SeiTices Marketing, 3 (Summer).6-!5,

Merrill. Ann (1999), "Rainbow's Version of Fast Food." Slar Tri-bune (Minneapolis). (August 12). DI ,

Meuter. Matthew L, and Mary Jo Bitner (1998). "Self-ServiceTechnologies: Extending Service Frameworks and IdentifyingIssues for Re.search." In AMA Winter Educator's ConferenceProceedings: Marketing Theory and Appliealions, Vol, 9,Dhruv Grewal and Connie Pechmann. eds, Chicago: AmericanMarketing Association, 12-19,

Mills, Peter K., Richard Chase, and N, Margulies (1983). "Moti-vating the Client/Etnployee System as a Service ProductionStrategy," Academy of Management Review. 8 (2), 301-310.

Mohr, Lois A, and Mary Jo Bitner (1995). "Process Factors in Ser-vice Delivery: What Employee Effort Means to Customers." inAdvances in Sen'ice Marketing and Management, Vol, 4. TeresaA, Swartz, David E, Bowen, and Stephen W, Brown, eds,Greenwich. CT: JAI Pre.ss. 91-117,

Oliver, Richard L, (1993), "Cognitive. Affective, and AttributeBases of the Satisfaction Response," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 20 (December), 418-30,

(1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on ihe Con-sumer. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Inc.

. Roland T Rust, and Sajcev Varki (1997). "CustomerDelight: Foundations. Findings, and Managerial Insight." Jour-nal of Retailing, 73 (3). 311-36.

Parasuraman. A, (1996), "Understanding and Leveraging the Roleof Customer Service in External. Interactive and Internal Mar-keting," paper presented at Frontiers in Services Conference.Nashville, TN (October).

(1998). "Customers' Comfort Level with Technology-Based Services: An Empirical Study," paper presented at AMAWinter Educator's Conference, Austin, TX (February 21-24).

Perreault. William D . Jr.. and Laurence E, Leigh (1989), "Relia-bility of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments." Jour-nal of Marketing Research. 26 (May), 135-48,

Price. Linda L., Eric J. Arnould, and Sheila L, Deibler (1995),"Consumers" Emotional Responses to Service Encounters,"Inlernalional Journal of Service Industiy Mana^emenl, 6 (3).34-63,

, , and Patrick Tieniey (1995). "Going to Extremes:Managing Service Encounters and Assessing Provider Perfor-mance," ./(>»/7ifl/c)/A^(://-/:r/(/i,i,'. 59 (April), 83-97,

Quinn. Jatiies Brian (1996). "The Productivity Paradox Is False:Information Technology Improves Service Performance." inAdvances in Seiyices Marketing and Management. Vol, 5,Teresa A, Swartz, David E, Bowen, and Stephen W, Brown,eds, Greenwich. CT: JAI Press. 71-84.

Rafaeli, Anal 11993). "Dress and Behavior of Customer ContactEmployees: A Framework for Analysis." in Advances in Sen-iceMarketing ctnd Mtinugemenl. Vol, 4. Teresa A. Swarl/,. David E.Bowen, and Stepheti W Brown, eds, Greenwich. CT: JAI Press,175-211.

Raub, Annaly.se Callahan (1981). "Correlates of Compuier Anxi-ety in College Students." doctoral dissertation. ChemistryDepartment, University of Pennsylvania,

Rayport, Jeffrey F, and John J, Sviokla (1994). "Managing in theMarkelspace." Han-ard Business Review, 11 (November/December). 2-11.

and (1995). ""Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain,"Han'ard Business Review. 73 (November/December). 14-24,

Reichheld. F,F atid W,E, Sas.ser Jr, (1990), "'Zero Defections: Qual-ity Comes to Services," Han'ard Business Review, 68 (Septem-ber/October), 105-111.

Schneider. Benjamin and David E, Bowen (1995). Winning iheSen'ice Game. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,

Smith. Amy K, and Ruth N, Bolton( 1998). ""An Experimental inves-tigation ol Customer Reactions [o Service Failure and RecoveryEncoun te r s . " Journal of Sen-ice Research, 1 ( 1 ) . 6 5 - 8 1 ,

Solomon, Michael R.. Carol F, Surprenant, John A. Czepiel, andEvelyn G Guttnan (1985). "A Role Theory Perspective onDyadic Interactions." Journal of Marketing, 49 (Winter). 99-111.

Surprenant. Carol F, and Michael R, Solomon (1987). "Pre-dictability and Personalization in Ihe Service Encounter." Jour-nal of Marketmg. 51 (April). 73-80,

Tax, Stephen S, and Stephen W. Brown (1998). ""Recovering andLearning from Service Failure," Sloan Management Review. 40(I), 75-88.

. . and Murali Chandrashekaran (1998). "CustomerEvaluations of Service Complaint Experiences: Implicationsfor Relationship Marketing." Journal of Marketing. 62 (April).60-76,


Technical Assistance Research Programs Institute (1986), Con-sumer Complain! Handling in America: An Update Study. PartII. Washington, DC: U.S, Office of Consumer Affairs,

White, Frank M, and Edwin A, Locke (1981). "Perceived Deter-minants of High and Low Productivity in Three OccupationalGroups: A Critical Incident Study," Journal of ManagementStudies, 18(4), 375-87.

Zeithaml. Valarie (1981). ""How Consumer Evaluation ProcessesDiffer Between Goods and Services," in Marketing Services,James H, Donnelly and William R, George, eds. Chicago:American Marketing Association. 186-89.

and Mary C. Gilly (1987). "Characteristics Affecting theAcceptance of Retailing Technologies: A Comparison of Elderlyand Nonelderly Consumers," Journal of Retailing. 63 (I), 49-68.

WASHINGTON • UNIVERSITY- IN • ST- UOUS

John M. Olin School of BusinessThe John M. Olin School of Business is seeking faculty at all levels who have research and teachinginterests in mafketing. The qualifications include a demonstrated interest in and capacity to do researchpublishahle in leading marketing journals and a high level of teaching competence in graduate andundergraduate classes. Candidates should hold a doctorate degree or he near completion. The OlinSchool has 75 full titne faculty and offers degree programs at the Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D. level.The School has excellent physical, computing and library facilities. Faculty receive superior support forhoth research and teaching activities. Applications should include a curriculum vita, names andaddresses of at least three referetices, and copies of research papers and publications.

Contact: Dean Stuart I. Greenbaum, John M. Olin School of Business, Washington University, Box 1133,One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130. For fullest consideration, applications should be receivedhy November 1,2000.

Washington University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and welcomesapplications from women and minorities.


matthew l. meuter, amy l. ostrom, robert i. roundtree, & …steho87/und/htdd01/3383341.pdf ·...

Documents