Service Business

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 615–634 | Cite as

Antecedents of intention to use CUSS system: moderating effects of self-efficacy

Empirical article


The current research attempts to examine the antecedent factors of personal innovativeness, switching costs, and switching barriers affecting flight passengers’ attitude toward the common-use self-service (CUSS) usage which in turn affects their behavioral intention. This research also tests the moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationships between the antecedents and attitude toward CUSS usage. The results from a survey of 523 respondents from the Taiwanese Taoyuan International Airport indicate that the antecedent factors of personal innovativeness and switching barriers have positive and negative influences, respectively on attitude toward CUSS usage which in turn positively affects the behavioral intention. In addition, self-efficacy plays an important moderating role on the relationships between switching barriers and switching costs on attitude toward CUSS usage. In this article, personal innovativeness is investigated on affecting consumer behavior in the acceptance of IT related innovations. Implications for future research are discussed and limitations noted.


CUSS Personal innovativeness Switching barriers Switching costs 


  1. Agarwal R, Prasad J (1998) A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Inf Syst Res 9(2):204–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Org Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen I, Madden TJ (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitude, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J Exp Soc Psychol 22(5):453–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura A (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol 37(2):122–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freeman & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Benbasat I, Barki H (2007) Quo vadis, TAM? J Assoc Inf Syst 8(4):2116–2118Google Scholar
  8. Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation confirmation model. MIS Q. 25(3):351–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buell RW, Campbell D, Frei F (2010) Are self-service customers satisfied or stuck? Prod Oper Manag 19(6):679–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang HH, Chen SW (2008) The impact of customer interface quality satisfaction and switching costs on e-loyalty: Internet experience as a moderator. Comput Hum Behav 24(6):2927–2944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang HL, Yang CH (2008) Do airline self-service check-in kiosks meet the needs of passengers? Tour Manag 29(5):980–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chea S, Luo MM (2006) E-service customer retention: the roles of negative affectivity and perceived switching costs. J Inf Sci Technol 3(2):5–21Google Scholar
  13. Dabholkar PA, Bagozzi RP (2002) An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. J Acad Mark Sci 30(3):184–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dabholkar PA, Swartz TA, Bowen DE, Brown W (1994) Technology-based service delivery: a classification scheme for developing marketing strategies. Adv Serv Mark Manag 3(1):241–271Google Scholar
  15. Davis FD (1986) A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellett AJ (2009) Intentions to remain employed in child welfare: the role of human caring, self-efficacy beliefs, and professional organizational culture. Child Youth Serv Rev 31(1):78–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elliott KM, Hall MC (2005) Assessing consumers’ propensity to embrace self-service technologies: Are there gender differences? Mark Manag J 15(2):98–107Google Scholar
  19. Flynn LR, Goldsmith RE (1993) A validation of the Goldsmith and Hofacker innovativeness scale. Educ Psychol Meas 53(4):1105–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerbing DW, Anderson JC (1988) An updated paradigmfor scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. J Mark Res 25(2):186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hair JF Jr, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  22. Hasan B (2006) Delineating the effects of general and system-specific computer self-efficacy beliefs on is acceptance. Inf Manag 43(5):565–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayashi A, Chen C, Ryan T, Wu J (2004) The role of social presence and moderating role of computer self efficacy in predicting the continuance usage of e-learning systems. J Inf Syst Educ 15(2):139–154Google Scholar
  24. Hirschman EC (1980) Innovativeness, novelty seeking and consumer creativity. J Consum Res 7(3):283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hong WY, Thong YL, Wong WM, Tam KY (2002) Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: an empirical examination of individual differences and system characteristics. J Manag Inf Syst 18(3):97–124Google Scholar
  26. Hong SJ, Thong YL, Tam KY (2006) Understanding continued information technology usage behavior: a comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet. Decis Support Syst 42(3):1819–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hong SG, Kim JK, Lee HS (2008) Antecedents of use-continuance in information systems: toward an integrative view. J Comput Inf Syst 48(3):61–73Google Scholar
  28. Hsu MH, Chiu CM (2004) Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decis Support Syst 38(3):369–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hsu CL, Lu HP (2004) Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Inf Manag 41(7):853–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hung SY, Ku CY, Chang CM (2003) Critical factors of WAP services adoption: an empirical study. Electron Commer Res Appl 2(1):42–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Imhof M, Vollmeyer R, Beierlein C (2007) Computer use and the gender gap: the issue of access, use, motivation, and performance. Comput Hum Behav 23(6):2823–2837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jashapara A, Tai WC (2011) Knowledge mobilization through e-learning systems: understanding the mediating roles of self-efficacy and anxiety on perceptions of ease of use. Inf Syst Manag 28(1):71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson EJ, Payne JW (1985) Effort and accuracy in choice. Manag Sci 31(4):395–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson DS, Bardhi F, Dunn DT (2008) Understanding how technology paradoxes affect customer satisfaction with self-service technology: the role of performance ambiguity and trust in technology. Psychol Mark 25(5):416–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnston A, Warkentin M (2010) Fear appeals and information security behaviors: an empirical study. MIS Q. 34(3):549–566Google Scholar
  36. Jones MA, Mothersbaugh DL, Beatty SE (2000) Switching barrier and repurchase intentions in services. J Retail 76(2):259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim J, Forsythe S (2008) Sensory enabling technology acceptance model (SE-TAM): a multiple-group structural model comparison. Psychol Mark 25(9):901–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim HW, Kankanhalli A (2009) Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: a status Quo bias perspective. MIS Q. 33(3):556–582Google Scholar
  39. Kim MK, Park MC, Jeong DH (2004) The effects of customer satisfaction and switching barrier on customer loyalty in Korean mobile telecommunication services. Telecommun Policy 28(2):145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kinard BR, Capella ML, Kinard JL (2009) The impact of social presence on technology based self-service use: the role of familiarity. Serv Mark Q. 30(3):303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kwon O, Kim M (2007) User acceptance of context-aware services: self-efficacy, user innovativeness and perceived sensitivity on contextual pressure. Behav Inf Technol 26(6):483–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewis W, Agarwal R, Sambamurthy V (2003) Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: an empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Q. 27(4):657–678Google Scholar
  43. Lim J (2012) Attribution of service failures with SST (self-service technology). Does it matter? RevBus Res 12(1):80–89Google Scholar
  44. Marcoulides GA (1998) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  45. Marler JH, Fisher SL, Ke W (2009) Employee self-service technology acceptance: a comparison of pre-implementation and post-implementation relationships. Pers Psychol 62(2):327–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meuter ML, Ostrom AL, Roundtree RI, Bitner MJ (2000) Self-service technologies: understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters. J Mark 64(3):50–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meuter ML, Bitner MJ, Ostrom AL, Brown SW (2005) Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. J Mark 69(2):61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morton N, Koufteros X (2008) Intention to commit online music piracy and its antecedents: an empirical investigation. Struct Equ Model 15:491–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mullen MR (1995) Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. J Int Bus Stud 26(3):573–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Natarajan T, Balasubramanian SA, Manickavasagam S (2010) Customer’s choice amongst self service technology (SST) channels in retail banking: a study using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). J Internet Banking Commer 15(2):1–16Google Scholar
  51. Ngai EWT, Poon JKL, Chan YHC (2007) Empirical examination of the adoption the WebCT using TAM. Comput Educ 48(2):250–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pavlou P, Fygenson M (2006) Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q. 30(1):115–143Google Scholar
  53. Polites G, Karahanna E (2012) Shackled to the Status Quo: the inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Q. 36(1):21–42Google Scholar
  54. Ray G, Muhanna WA, Barney JB (2005) Information technology and the performance of the customer service process: a resource-based analysis. MIS Q. 29(4):625–652Google Scholar
  55. Rodrigues MA, Proenca J (2010) SST and the consumer behavior in portuguese financial services, working paper (FEP). Universidade do porto 261:1–19Google Scholar
  56. Roehrich G (2004) Consumer innovativeness concepts and measurements. J Bus Res 57(6):671–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, vol 4. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Rust RT, Kannan PK (2003) E-service: a new paradigm for business in the electronic environment. Commun ACM 46(6):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sharma N, Patterson PG (2000) Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and experience as moderators of relationship commitment in professional consumer services. Int J Serv Ind Manag 11(5):470–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sharma R, Yetton P, Crawford J (2009) Estimating the effect of common method variance: the method-method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS Q. 33(3):473–490Google Scholar
  61. Simon F, Usunier JC (2007) Cognitive, demographic, and situational determinants of service customer preference for personnel-in-contact over self-service technology. Int J Res Mark 24(2):163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thatcher JB, Perrewé PL (2002) An empirical examination of individual traits as antecedents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Q. 26(4):381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Titah R, Barki H (2009) Nonlinearities between attitude and subjective norms in information technology acceptance: A negative synergy? MIS Q. 33(4):827–844Google Scholar
  64. Valenzuela F, Person D, Epworth R (2005) Influence of switching barriers on service recovery evaluation. J Serv Res 6((Special Issue)):239–257Google Scholar
  65. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
  66. Wang CY (2009) Investigating antecedents of consumers’ recommend intentions and the moderating effect of switching barriers. Serv Ind 29(9):1231–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu JH, Chen YC, Lin LM (2007) Empirical evaluation of the revised end user computing acceptance model. Comput Hum Behav 23(1):162–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Xue L, Ray G, Sambamurthy V (2012) Efficiency or innovation: How do industry environments moderate the effects of firms’ IT asset portfolios? MIS Q. 36(2):509–528Google Scholar
  69. Yang K (2010) The effects of technology self-efficacy and innovatioveness on consumer mobile data service adoption between American and Korean consumers. J Int Consum Mark 22(117):117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yi Y, Gong T (2008) The electronic service quality model: the moderating effect of customer self-efficacy. Psychol Mark 25(7):587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yi Y, Wu Z, Tung LL (2006) How individual differences influence technology usage behavior? Toward an integrated framework. J Comput Inf Syst 46(2):52–63Google Scholar
  72. Yim CK, Chan KW, Lam SK (2012) Do customers and employees enjoy service participation? Synergistic effects of self-and other-efficacy. J Mark 76(6):121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management SciencesTamkang UniversityNew TaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Business AdministrationHsing Wu UniversityNew TaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations