CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Customer Service Quality and LoyaltyAI in Service InteractionsTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Giving back the “self” in self service: customer preferences in self-service failure recovery

Collier, Joel E., Breazeale, Michael, White, Allyn·2017·Journal of Services Marketing
DOI 10.1108/jsm-07-2016-0259
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: When a failure occurs with a self-service technology (SST), do customers want to give back the “self” in self-service? The authors explore employee’s role in a self-service failure and how the presence of other customers can change that role. Specifically, they examine how the self-monitoring of customers behavior during a failure can change recovery preferences. Design/methodology/approach: Data were collected from customers of a movie self-service ticket kiosk and a grocery self-checkout. Three experiments were conducted. Findings: Results from these studies find that customers want employees to fully take over a transaction after a failure if it takes place in isolation. If other patrons are present or waiting in line, then customers prefer the employee to simply correct the problem and let them complete the transaction. Finally, the servicescape along with the presence of other customers in a self-service area can induce self-monitoring behaviors and alter optimal recovery strategies. Research limitations/implications: These findings have implications on the appropriate amount of recovery assistance customers need in a self-service experience. Practical implications: This research reveals the social and functional complexities associated with executing a satisfactory SST failure recovery, particularly with respect to determining the extent to which the employee or customer should control the attempt. Originality/value: This is the first study to examine the employee’s role in a self-service failure. While other studies have examined customers’ intentions in a self-service failure, authors examine how a service provider can assist in the recovery of a self-service failure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jsm-07-2016-0259

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Users' primary focus is usually on obtaining the desired outcome efficiently, prioritizing resolution over understanding of why a failure occurred.

    “Furthermore, users' primary focus is usually on obtaining the desired outcome efficiently, prioritizing resolution over understanding of why a failure occurred (Collier et al., 2017;Hassija et al., 2024).”

    From Explainability in AI: Comparing Human-Like and System-Like Trust Repair Strategies (2026) · cites this paper as Collier et al., 2017

  • User-assisted repairs could also lead to a more tailored or accurate resolution if the user correctly assists the CA in resolving the error.

    “User-assisted repairs could also lead to a more tailored or accurate resolution if the user correctly assists the CA in resolving the error (Ashktorab et al., 2019;Collier et al., 2017;McGrath et al., 2025).”

    From Explainability in AI: Comparing Human-Like and System-Like Trust Repair Strategies (2026) · cites this paper as Collier et al., 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Collier, J. E., Breazeale, M., & White, A.
Affiliations
  • Mississippi State University (US)
  • University of Mississippi (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Services Marketing
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2017-10-12
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
604-617
ISSN
0887-6045 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/jsm-07-2016-0259
OpenAlex
W2763517206
Cited by
82
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2
FWCI
10.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Services Marketing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
fault recovery, consumer preferences, job roles, self-monitoring, servicescape, self-checkout, customer-employee interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review