Compact Eases School Transitions for Military Children

ADOPTION OF SELF SERVICE BILL PAYMENT TECHNOLOGIES (SSBPTS): A CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Journal of Services Research April 1, 2007 | R, Jayasimha K; Nargundkar, Rajendra In many industries the concept of full-service is on a rapid decline. Self service either aided by technology or otherwise is dramatically altering the way many services are created and delivered. While Banking and Financial Service Industries (BFSI) continue to invest heavily in technology, use of technology mediated self service is spreading rapidly to other industries also. Increasing number of self service bill payment technology (SSBPT) applications can be found in both private and public sector. Credit & debit card companies, insurance companies, utilities like water, power, telecom etc., are in the forefront of SSBPT applications. However, available literature reveals over-emphasis on BFSI sector skewed towards a few types of Self Service Technologies (SSTs). Past studies have investigated both active and passive SSTs as well as demand based & supply based issues in adoption of SSTs. However, as SSTs spread to new services, to new cultural and organizational settings, further research is required. Based on a critical review of literature, this paper presents a number of research propositions which can be operationalised and tested empirically.

INTRODUCTION Increasing contribution of service sector to the economy of many nations, including India, is well documented. Deregulation of many services like telecom, insurance, banking etc., and enormous growth of internal services and increased competition among others are fuelling this growth. As significant percentage of GNP of many countries depend on the service sector, the future of these economies would depend on the efficiency of service delivery systems (Globerson and Maggard, 1990). In their effort to increase efficiency of service delivery at a significantly lower cost, many firms are getting customers to do things that were earlier done by the service provider by interacting with technology. In other words, they are moving towards self service.

The concept of self service was in vogue much before the research community took it seriously. Evidence suggests practice of self service in certain kinds of retailing as early as 1916. However, the categorization of different services based on the degree of self service intensity on a continuum comprising of full service and self service at two extremes happened much later (Globerson and Maggard, 1991).

In a full service transaction, the customer only specifies the purchase and all other activities are performed by the service provider. In self service, the customer performs all or some part of the activity which otherwise would have been performed by the service provider. In doing so, many times, the customer might have to interact with different technologies. Such technologies facilitate interfaces that enable customers to produce a service independent of direct employee involvement. This is termed as ‘Self Service Technologies’ (SST’s).

As evident from the literature, initially self service became extremely popular in industries such as meat retailing, banking, hotel, gasoline retailing, etc. Early studies in SST area focused on self service using primitive technologies like vending machines (Dabholkar, 1992, 1996) and on a single technology. Subsequently, Meuter et al (2000) studied diverse forms of SSTs available like IVRS (Interactive Voice Recording Systems), Internet, Interactive kiosks and video CDs in their study. They also studied various purposes the self service technologies were used in different industries like customer service, transactions and self help.

Issues pertaining to adoption of technology by consumers in different contexts has attracted the attention of researchers from diverse fields. Research on Self Service Technology (SST) is multi- disciplinary and studies pertaining to different facets of usage of technology can be found in economics, sociology, social psychology, innovation diffusion, user acceptance of IT and in sub areas of marketing, like services marketing (Rogers, 1995; Saloner and Shepard, 1995; McKenna, 1995; Moutinho and Curry, 1994; Hunter et al, 2001). The body of research that has particularly investigated adoption of various self service bill payment modes is also relevant for the present study. In the following sections existing research addressing adoption of different SSTs including self service bill payment is critically reviewed and ideas for new research are proposed.

LITERATURE REVIEW Literature primarily in the sub areas of marketing like services marketing, consumer acceptance of technology, adoption of bill payment systems etc; is reviewed and findings are presented under following five sections viz., user profiles, user; nonuser perspectives, task and performer, service alternatives and social learning. Towards the end of the section, a summary of literature is provided and specific gaps are identified, which act as a basis for the proposed model.

USER PROFILES Studies that have primarily investigated demographic and psychographic profiles of users/nonusers of SSTs are presented in this section. Early studies focused on developing the profiles of customers who were likely to use SSTs like ATM and online banking. Langeard et al (1981) found customers who were younger, single, better educated but having lower income willing to use SSTs. Zeithamal and Gilly (1987) have listed several studies relating resistance to marketing technology to age. Moutinho and Curry (1994) list users of ATM as; young, better educated, having higher income, residing in household where the female is employed and children are present, more likely to be male, and married. Stevens et al. (1989) psychographically profiled bank customers into users, non adopters and laggards. Laggards differed from non adapters in many ways. They had higher income, were more likely to be married and reside in a household where female is not employed. They were also more likely to be female.

Many studies (Langeard et al., 1981; Zeithamal and Gilly, 1987; Moutinho and Curry 1994) have noted that younger people are attitudinally enthusiastic about self service options. Authors have also coined typologies like ‘system-slayer’ and ‘functionalist’. System slayer is one who wants to negotiate, beat the system, get the best deal and is happy to spend time dealing with people to secure this; whereas, a functionalist prefers fastest result with least human contact possible (Howard, 2000). Some of the above findings have found support in the bill payment literature as well. Kolodinsky and Hogarth (2001) list studies that have investigated adoption of technologies like phone banking, bill payment, electronic fund transfer, PC banking etc., that found factors like gender, region of residence, education, age and income to affect adoption.

USER-NONUSER PERSPECTIVES He also found differences between self service users and non-self service users. Self service users considered time, risk, efficiency and control most important. Non-self service users considered risk as the most important factor. Leblanc (1990) in his study of perceptions of users and non-users of ATM found accessibility as the prime reason for using ATM.

Globerson and Maggard (1991) have listed self control, risk and self fulfillment as intrinsic forces that would influence the choice of self service. They also list convenience of use, and time and money saved as extrinsic forces that would influence choice of self service. In output oriented selfservices, the authors equate convenience to accessibility. Kutler (1982) found that usage of ATMs can be enhanced by installing ATMs at more locations.

In the diffusion of innovation literature, Rogers (1995) has identified relative advantage, compatibility, simplicity, observability and trialibility as the characteristics that influence consumer acceptance of an innovation. Kolodinsky and Hogarth (2001) have empirically tested the influence of above factors in consumer acceptance of E-banking technologies including self service bill payment systems and have found support.

TASK & PERFORMER Further research focused on the influence of the task and performer on adoption of SSTs. Task complexity was found to influence the choice of self service. Campbell (1988) proposed the following three properties of task complexity viz., psychological experience, interaction between task and performer and task characteristics. Frost and Mahoney (1976) distinguished between prescribed and unprescribed tasks with unprescribed tasks being more complex than prescribed tasks.

To successfully perform a task the performer should have all the relevant information as well as technical abilities. Hommand (1986) argued that a task requiring the performer to base his judgment on memory is more complex than a task where information is displayed. This argument highlights the need for providing all the required information online rather than expecting the customer to memorize.

SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Globerson & Crossman (1976) and Terborg & Miller (1978) further advanced the understanding of task complexity. They argued that the more the number of alternative ways of doing a task, the more complex the accomplishment of the task is. They also categorized customer objectives into (a) output oriented like, for example taking cash from ATM and (b) pleasure as an output of the process like in case of playing video games. Globerson & Maggard (1991) found most of the self services usages to be output oriented. They also argued that the nature of the task to be performed would result in ‘self fulfillment’ or might affect self image.

Kolodinsky and Hogarth (2005) distinguish between active and passive SST technology. They argue that many e-banking technologies are widely spread as they are passive. In most passive technologies, users set up the process once and monitor it. Whereas in active SSTs for every transaction, the user needs to provide inputs that interact with technology. For example, kiosk based bill payment.

SOCIAL LEARNINIG In a large study involving many nations, Antonides, et al. (1998) found that adoption of payment systems to be influenced by social learning. Hence they argued for use of reference group to create opportunities for social learning. There were some incentives (monetary and otherwise) initially to accelerate adoption of SSTs. Subsequent studies which investigated usage of self service in the absence of usual incentives found continued usage of SSTs even in the absence of usual incentives. Network literature presents interesting empirical findings about adoption of ATMs. The basic argument is that in any network (including ATMs) value of participating for customers as well as firms, increases with network size. Also called ‘accessibility effect’, it means that each new user confers a benefit on all other users. Network literature also implies that usage of ATMs would increase if the benefit rises over time (Saloner and Shepard, 1995).

While network literature argues for network size (how big), Kolodinsky and Hogarth (2001) underline the importance of ‘for how long’ the technology has been around. They distinguish between mature technologies (for example, the ATM) and recent technologies. However the relationship between nature of technology (recent/mature) and adoption is not very apparent.

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND GAPS It is evident from the above review that past studies have examined the different dimensions of the likelihood of adoption of technology based services by consumers. While many studies discussed above have identified favorable demographic profile that would influence the adoption of SSTs and have concluded that education among other demographic factors affect adoption, they have not distinguished between functionally literate and functionally illiterate for a given SST. In a given context, even the so called ‘educated’ can be ‘functionally illiterate’. In general, the past studies that have demographically profiled users/nonusers have ignored the plurality of literacies. The paucity of research on the impact of functional illiteracy on adoption SSTs prompts this study.

Past studies (cited in the literature review) have categorized customers’ on a bipolar scale as users and non-users. This is too simplistic. Past studies have not captured the ’emotional cost’ that customer’s might incur in adopting or giving up on using a SST. Further research is required to understand this dimension of customer behavior based impediment for adopting SSTs. While adoption of a wide range of SSTs has been studied, there are very few studies, if any that have distinguished between active and passive technology. Kiosk based bill payment systems that public utilities like water, telecom, electricity etc., are implementing are more recent and active technologies. The unique factors influencing adoption of active-recent technologies need to be further investigated.

While past studies have studied the relative advantage of SSTs over traditional modes, they have ignored the issue of perceived relative advantage of SSTs eroding with subsequent improvements in traditional modes of service delivery. Based on the above gaps, in the following sections, functional illiteracy, coping strategies and improvements in traditional modes and their potential impact on adoption are discussed.

THE SELF SERVICE BILL PAYMENT TECHNOLOGY MODEL It is obvious from the above discussion that SSTs in certain industries like BFSI (ATM, online banking etc.) have received more attention than others. It is surprising that in spite of a large number of SST bill payment interventions by public utility service providers like water, electricity, telecom etc., no study was found in this area. Public utility services like water, sewerage, electricity, telephone, transport etc., are used by greater number of people than services like credit cards, debit cards etc., As many of the public utilities are natural monopolies (Kannan & Pillai, 2001) large majority of the population depend on a single service provider. Hence, any radical change in the design and delivery of service would impact greater number of people than most of the other services. The paucity of studies in this area prompts the present study. website adp self service see here adp self service

KIOSK BASED PUBLIC UTILITY BILL PAYMENT It is obvious that one has to pay for the services used. Except for a small minority, most of the public utility service users pay for the services consumed in urban India. Most public utilities have a billing cycle of one or two months. Depending on the billing cycle, a bill is delivered to the customer either once in a month or once in two months. The bill has to be paid within the specified time (depending on the public utility, it varies from two weeks to four weeks from the date of delivery of the bill).

McGrath (2005) classify two primary modes of bill payment viz., ‘biller direct’ and ‘consolidator approach’. In the former, individual biller (say a utility) would present consumers’ bill on its website along with an option to pay online. In the later case, customers are offered an integrated solution where bills from different sources are consolidated. Both of these are in primitive stages in India.

In India, consumers can pay the utility bills in multiple ways viz., at the manned cash counter, online, using ECS (Electronic Clearance System) where the bill amount is automatically credited to the utilities account from the user’s account and using a kiosk based bill payment system.

Kiosk based bill payment system by water, electricity, telecom and other utilities is a major SST intervention introduced in the recent past by progressive South Indian public utilities (Jayasimha and Nadakarni, 2004). These kiosks are designed to accept bills of multiple public utilities. These kiosks function exactly in an opposite manner to an ATM. ATMs primarily dispense money (also accept in certain cases), while kiosks primarily accept money (bill amount). Many kiosks are expected to provide information like new connection status, complaint status etc., and other services like applying for new connections, cancellation of existing connections, registering a complaint etc., of the host public utility and its network associates.

Before kiosks were introduced, one had to spend great amount of time for a simple task like bill payment, as modes of bill payment were limited and the number of bill payment counters were few relative to the number of bill payers. For example in the city of Bangalore, 400,000 people were paying water bill every month and there were only 54 counters all over the city where users could pay water bills. Hence inordinate time was spent on public utilities bill payment (Jayasimha and Nadakarni, 2004).

In many households it was the retired or nonworking individual who paid the bill. Or in many cases households outsourced to anyone willing to do the job even it if meant paying a small commission. In many cases house maids or office boys were assigned the task of bill payment. Very rarely, the earning male member of the family paid the bill. Going by the findings of the past research listed in the early part of the paper, this might not be the ideal demographic profile for self service technology adoption.

IMPROVEMENTS IN TRADITIONAL MODES OF BILL PAYMENT Past studies that have investigated choice of full service versus self service by customers have compared new modes of service delivery (like the self service option) with current modes of service delivery (full service mode). The implicit assumptions in these studies have been that the new modes of service delivery like SSTs are always better than traditional modes of service delivery. This is because the past studies have ignored radical improvements (or even incremental improvements) in the traditional modes of service delivery which may have taken place, impacting the comparison with new modes of service delivery like SSTs. To that extent, they may offer a onesided view of the reality.

For example, the e-Seva centers which represent a tremendous improvement in the delivery of public utility service in non-SST mode. In states like Andhra Pradesh, e-Seva centers have revolutionized the delivery of public service. It is a radically new way of delivering public utility service in non-SST mode. Factors like convenience, time saving, accessibility, 24 x 7 service etc., which are normally associated with SSTs have become hallmarks of full service operations like e-Seva. Franchising of non-core services by many public utilities have dramatically changed the delivery of services in non-SST mode (e-Seva centers are franchised and privately run).

FUNCTIONAL ILLITERACY AND ITS IMPACT A universal problem that self service providers would have to come to grips is to manage ‘functional illiteracy’. It is a well accepted fact that the skills required to grasp written and verbal meaning depends on the context (Vishwanathan et al., 2005). In this case the context is self service bill payment technology. For example if a bill payment kiosk accepts currencies of select denominations, finding appropriate denominations to match the amount to be paid might exceed the numerical skills of many.

Similarly, if a bill payment kiosk accepts currency notes of select denominations, finding the right combination of denominations to exactly match the bill amount might not be possible. This means users are likely to pay an amount less than what is to be paid or more than the bill amount. Excess paid would get adjusted in the next billing cycle. However, if what is paid is less than the bill amount, in the next billing cycle for the difference amount, interest would be charged. Functional literacy skills of many might be inadequate to comprehend this.

Apart from inadequate numeric skills, many users might find their language skills inadequate to successfully follow the instructions. The functional illiteracy which is cumulative impact of inadequate numeric and language skills might be substantial.

FUNCTIONAL ILLITERACY AND COPING Depending on the context, functionally illiterate consumers undergo significant emotional cost (Vishwanathan et al., 2005). As a result they display unique coping mechanisms. Decisions regarding adoption/non adoption of various SSTs including public utility SSTs might be an outcome of the coping mechanism. Theoretically, customers might take a problem solving approach and confront the situation. In the absence of explicit training being provided by the public utilities for using SSTs customers might seeks support from any one who is willing and capable of helping them or if the perceived difficulty is too high, they may altogether give up the idea of using the SST (Piko, 2001). A significant fallout of coping mechanism is decision heuristics, which are the convenient rules that customers follow which might uniquely influence the adoption of SST.

As indicated in the conceptual model, bill payment SST adoption would be influenced by functional illiteracy, coping mechanisms and improvements in the traditional modes of service delivery. Adoption of bill payment SSTs would depend on the gap between literacy and numeric skills required to successfully use the SST and literacy and numeric skills of the customers.

Customers might still adopt an SST even when their numeric and literacy skills are inadequate if they take problem solving approach and if adequate social support is available. However, avoidance coping mechanism at any stage of consumption would negatively influence the adoption.

Improvements in traditional modes of service delivery will alter the perceived superior benefit of SSTs over non SST modes of service delivery. With subsequent improvements in traditional modes of service delivery, SSTs might be left with very few unique benefits that customers appreciate.

DISCUSSION The conceptual model developed by us may be used by both academicians as well as practitioners. This model identifyies new propositions for research. A large scale study is required to establish the relationship between different variables that impact adoption of a bill payment SST.

The conceptual model is an attempt to identify the major factors that might influence the adoption of bill payment SSTs of utilities like water, electricity, telecom, etc. in the Indian context. In the present model, adoption is the dependent variable with functional illiteracy, coping and improvements in traditional modes of service delivery as independent variables. The propositions presented below can be empirically investigated.

FUNCTIONAL ILLITERACY P1: Nature and extent of functional literacy required significantly differs from one SST to another SST even when similar technology is used.

We are of the opinion that even when similar technology is used – for example the kiosk, the nature and extend of functional illiteracy required would differ. Both ATM and bill payment SSTs are kiosk based SSTs. However, they differ significantly in terms of kiosk design, language options, complexity of the instructions provided by the SST and more importantly, the nature of the task to be performed. They also differ in terms of ‘maturity of technology’. These differences would demand different levels of functional literacy even when similar technology is used.

P2: Given the extent of demographic heterogeneity, functional illiteracy is significantly more in utility kiosk based bill payment SSTs than other SSTs in Banking and Financial Services.

Intuitive logic suggests that public utility services like electricity, transport, water etc., are used by greater number of people with significant variance in demographic characteristic features. Hence, the demographic profile of user is likely to be less favorable than bill payment SSTs for credit/debit card. We therefore propose that given the extent of demographic heterogeneity, nature and extent of functional illiteracy would also significantly vary in case of bill payment SSTs for utilities like water, electricity, telecom etc.

COPING STRATEGIES P3: Consumers undergo significant emotional cost and hence display coping mechanisms while using kiosk based bill payment SSTs.

As cited earlier, when consumer’s literacy and numeric skills are inadequate to successfully perform a particular activity, they suffer from stress and display coping mechanisms. We propose that this phenomenon can be observed in consumers using utility bill payment SSTs as many of them might suffer from functional illiteracy (P2).

P4: Users of kiosk based bill payment SSTs exhibit unique decision heuristics.

This is a corollary to the above proposition (P3). Given the unfavorable demographic profile of users of utility services like water, electricity, telecom when compared to credit/debit card users, functional illiteracy would be significant. It is established that users suffering from functional illiteracy incur emotional cost and experience stress. To overcome stress they are likely to display coping mechanisms including unique decision heuristics or ‘rule of thumb’. Some of the unique decision heuristics in this case can be location loyalty, repeated use of specific denominations, time of day etc.

P5: Consumers exposed to improved traditional mode of service delivery are more likely to display confrontative mechanisms while dealing with kiosk based bill payment SSTs .

Theoretically at any stage of usage, consumers can display problem oriented strategies, emotion oriented strategies or avoidance oriented strategies. We propose that those consumers with prior experience of using improved traditional modes of service creation-delivery would successfully ‘confront’ the SSTs since they would have dealt with similar situations earlier. An intermediate step before introducing SSTs for bill payment has been ‘drop boxes’ where the consumers dropped cheque/cash in a sealed envelope. The public utility would collect these envelops at a designated time of the day. Since instant receipt was not provided in this case, consumers assumed certain amount of risk. As these ‘drop boxes’ were accessible round the clock, it meant greater convenience to customers. Most of the drop boxes were located in ATM centers. We believe all these factors would translate into greater confidence to confront the SST.

IMPROVEMENTS IN TRADITIONAL MODES OF SERVICE DELIVERY P6: Improvements in traditional mode of service delivery would significantly reduce the perceived benefits of kiosk based bill payment SSTs.

As cited earlier, consumers adopted SSTs (like ATM, e-banking etc.) for benefits like convenient location, works on 24×7 basis etc. With improvements in traditional modes of service delivery, many such benefits which were unique to SSTs have vanished. For example e-seva centers and Bangalore one centers (akin to e-seva in the state of Karnataka) which offer benefits of convenience, works for extended hours and has emerged as ‘one stop shop’ for most of the public services. Hence, we argue that with improvements in traditional modes of service delivery, perceived value of bill payment SSTs would reduce significantly.

P7: Significantly greater customers would accept radical improvements in non-SST mode of service delivery over SSTs.

In the absence of some of the biggest impediments for adopting SSTs like functional illiteracy, perceived control, perceived risk etc., we expect significantly greater acceptance of radical improvements in non-SST mode than SST mode of service delivery.

Testing the above propositions would provide insight into future of public utility SSTs. Functional illiteracy and radical as well as incremental improvements in traditional modes of service delivery would influence the adoption of public utility SSTs.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS We feel that a large scale study testing the above propositions would offer greater insights to policy makers and mangers. The biggest payoff might be in terms of reducing the digital divide or the people who can and who cannot, as quite often it is the consumers who most need the technology are the ones least likely to be able to use it.

Obvious from the literature review is that customers of certain demographic profile are more likely to use SSTs. It is unlikely that all utilities will have access to favorable demographic segment that would readily adopt SSTs. Unless large number of customers use SSTs, the implementing organizations will not achieve its objectives. Hence, understanding and addressing the impediments to adoption of SSTs would help foster adoption. Testing of the conceptual model would help SST implementing organizations overcome demand-based or customer behavior based impediments.

Currently in India, public utility SSTs are a South-Indian phenomenon. Given the emphasis on e-governance by many state governments, public utility SSTs might get replicated in many other states whose demographic profile might be less favorable than South Indian states. Empirical testing of the proposed model might answer some of the vital questions like:

1. Given the demographic profile of the region should an SST be implemented?

2. Choice of different modes of public utility service creation and delivery (active versus passive technologies).

3. Nature and extent of change in modes of service delivery – incremental changes in traditional mode of service delivery at regular intervals or radical change in traditional mode of service delivery but still use non- SST mode or opt for SST mode of service delivery.

4. Nature and extent of functional illiteracy among the citizens for a given SST application.

5. Given the level of language skills and numeric skills of its citizens, what should be the ideal SST design?

6. Appropriate strategies to reduce avoidance coping mechanisms for a particular SST application.

[Reference] REFERENCES Antondies G., Bas, A. and Ivo, C.H. (1998) ‘Adoption of payment systems in ten countries – A case study of diffusion of innovations’, European Journal of Marketing, 33:11, 1123-1135 Bateson J.E.G. (1985a) ‘Self service consumer: An exploratory study’, Journal of Retailing, 61: Fall, 49-76.

Bateson J.E.G. (1985) ‘Perceived control and the self service encounter’, in Czepiel, Solomon and Suprenant (eds), The Service Encounter, Lexington: MA, Heath, pp. 67-82.

Burris Beverly (1998) ‘Computerisation of the Workplace’, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 141-157.

Campbell, D. (1988) ‘Task complexity: A review and analysis’, Academy of Management Review, 13:1, 40-52.

Dabholkar, P. (1992) ‘Role of Affect and Need for Internet in On-site Service Encounters’, Advances in Consumer Research, 19:1, 563-569.

Dabholkar, P. (1996) ‘Consumer evaluation in new technology based self service options: An investigation of alternative models of service quality’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13: 1, 29-51.

Frost, P. and Mahoney, T., (1976) ‘Goal setting and the task process: An interactive influence on individual performance’, Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 17:2, 328-350.

Globerson S. and Crossman, E. (1976) ‘Nonrepetitive time: An objective index of job variety’, Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 17:5, 231-240.

Globerson S. and Maggard, M.J. (1991), ‘A Conceptual Model of Self Service’, International Journal of Operations & Productions Management, 11:4, 33-44.

Hommond K. (1986) ‘Theoretical Based Review of Theory and Research in Judgment and Decision Making’, Report 260, University of Colorado, Colorado.

Howard, M. (2000) ‘Teleculture’, Henley, Henley Centre for Forecasting.

Hunter, L., Bernhardt, A., Hughes, K. and Skuratowicz, E. (2001) ‘It’s not just the ATMs: Technology, firm strategies, jobs and earnings in retail banking’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54:2A, 402-424.

Jayasimha K.R. and Nadakarni M. (2004) ‘Bangalore water supplies and sewerage board’, The ICFAI Journal of Marketing Management, 3:1, 71-82.

Kannan and Pillai, V. (2001) ‘The political economy of public utilities: A study of the Indian power sector’, Working Paper 316, Thiruvananthapuram, India, Centre for Development Studies.

Kolodinsky, J. and Hogarth, J. (2001) ‘The adoption of electronic banking technologies by American consumers’, Consumer Interest Annual, 47, 1-9.

Kutler, J. (1982) ‘Consumers’ Acceptance of ATMs’, Credit, Jan/Feb, 8:1, 35-55.

Langeard, E.J; Bateson, Lovelock, C.H. and Eigher P., (1981) ‘Services Marketing; New Insights From Consumers and Managers’, Boston: Mass; Marketing Science Institute Report No 81-104.

Leblanc, G. (1990) ‘Customer motivations: Use and non-use of automated banking’, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 4:1, 35-55.

McKenna R. (1995) ‘Real-time marketing’, Harvard Business Review, July-August, 73:4, 87-95.

Meuter, M.L. Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.L. and Bitner, M.J. (2000) ‘Self service technologies: Understanding customer satisfaction with technology based service encounters, Journal of Marketing, 64:3, 50-64.

Moutinho L. and Curry, B. (1994) ‘Consumer perception of ATMs: An application of neural networks, Journal of Marketing Management, 10:1, 191-206.

Piko, Bettina, (2001) ‘Gender difference and similarities in adolescents ways of coping’, The Psychological Record, 51:2, 223-235.

Rogers E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, New York, The Free Press.

Saloner G. and Shepard, A. (1995) ‘Adoption of technologies with network effects: An empirical examination of the adoption of ATM’, Rand Journal of Economics, 26:3, 479-501.

Stevens, Robert, E., Warren, W. and Martin, R., (1989) ‘Non-adopters of automatic teller machines, Akron Business and Economic Review, 20; Fall, 55-63.

Terborg, J. and Miller H. (1978) ‘Motivation behavior and performance: A closer examination of goal setting and monetary incentives, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63:1, 29-39.

Vishwanathan M., Jose. A.R. and Harris, J.E. (2005) ‘Decision making and coping functionally illiterate consumers and some Implications for marketing management, Journal of Marketing, 69:1, 15-31.

Zeithaml, V. and Gilly, M.C. (1987) Characteristics effecting the acceptance of retiling technology: A comparison of elderly and non-elderly consumers, Journal of Retailing, 63:1, 39-68.

[Author Affiliation] Jayasimha K.R., is Assistant Professor of Marketing, PES Institute of Management, PESIT Campus, Banashankari, Bangalore, India.

Rajendra Nargundkar, is Director, PES Institute of Management, PESIT Campus, Ring Road, Banashankari, Bangalore, India.

R, Jayasimha K; Nargundkar, Rajendra