The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Self-Service Technologies: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
To facilitate efficient and effective service delivery, firms are introducing self-service technologies (SSTs) at an increasing pace. This article presents a meta-analysis of the factors influencing customer acceptance of SSTs. The authors develop a comprehensive causal framework that integrates constructs and relationships from different technology acceptance theories, and they use the framework to guide their meta-analysis of findings consolidated from 96 previous empirical articles (representing 117 independent customer samples with a cumulative sample size of 103,729 respondents). The meta-analysis reveals the following key insights: (1) SST usage is influenced in a complex fashion by numerous predictors that should be examined jointly; (2) ease of use and usefulness are key mediators, and studies ignoring them may underestimate the importance of some predictors; (3) several determinants of usefulness impact ease of use, and vice versa, thereby revealing crossover effects not previously revealed; and (4) the links leading up to SST acceptance in the proposed framework are moderated by SST type (transaction/self-help, kiosk/Internet, public/private, hedonic/utilitarian) and country culture (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance). Results from the meta-analysis offer managerial guidance for effective implementation of SSTs and provide directions for further research to augment current knowledge of SST acceptance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace 1
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x · Cited by 6,231 · cited 1×
“For example, prior observations regarding the role of enjoyment are inconsistent, with many studies reporting a weak or insignificant influence on technology acceptance (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1992), while others find a strong impact (Collier and Barnes 2015).”
ResultAnxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336 · Cited by 5,289 · cited 1×
“Attentional control theory (Eysenck et al. 2007) suggests that for less complex tasks such as SST usage, individuals’ concerns can motivate them to improve their task performance to avoid failure and negative evaluation, thereby implying a positive association between risk and SST usage.”
BackgroundA Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x · Cited by 3,802
Cited by
Blut, M., Wang, C., Wünderlich, N. V., & Brock, C. (2021) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y · Cited by 1,194
Self-citationCustomer experience challenges: Bringing together digital, physical and social realms
Bolton, R. N., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Cheung, L., Gallan, A., Orsingher, C., Witell, L., & Zaki, M. (2018) · Journal of Service Management · doi:10.1108/josm-04-2018-0113 · Cited by 849
Customer service chatbots: Anthropomorphism and adoption
Sheehan, B., Jin, H. S., & Gottlieb, U. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.030 · Cited by 667
Oke, A., & Fernandes, F. A. P. (2020) · Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc6020031 · Cited by 523
Predicting the intentions to use chatbots for travel and tourism
Melián-González, S., Gutiérrez-Taño, D., & Bulchand-Gidumal, J. (2021) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2019.1706457 · Cited by 406
Metadata
- Authors
- Blut, M., Wang, C., & Schoefer, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Service Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-08-06
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 396-416
- ISSN
- 1094-6705 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7379
- OpenAlex
- W2498677278
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 29.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Self-Service Technologies: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094670516662352
- The paper
- Blut, M., Wang, C., & Schoefer, K. (2016). Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Self-Service Technologies: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Service Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516662352
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
