Self-service technology recovery: the importance of psychological need support

Abstract

PurposeThe service recovery literature provides little guidance to firms on how users of self-service technology (SST) perceive assistance provided by human and non-human service agents following a service obstacle. This research responds by addressing two important research questions about SST recovery: (1) how are perceptions of assistance provided following a service obstacle influenced by a customer's psychological needs? and (2) does supporting the psychological needs of customers positively impact continuance intentions following a service obstacle?Design/methodology/approachData are collected to address the research questions via five experiments that explore how assistance provided by a non-human (vs human vs no assistance) service agent contributes to perceptions of psychological support and continuance intentions following a service obstacle while volitionally using SST.FindingsThe results show that while users of SST would prefer to do so without an obstacle requiring intervention of a service agent, if assistance is required then the psychological need support elicited from a non-human service agent was vital to an effective recovery. Further, the findings highlight some boundary conditions for this relationship, with the impact of customer perceived need support on continuance intentions found to be sensitive to fit between the task and assistance provided and the complexity of the task being completed.Originality/valueMuch of the prior service recovery literature has emphasized the different types of tactics that can be used (e.g. apologizing, monetary compensation and explaining what happened), failing to appreciate the role of different types of service agents or the underlying psychological process that explain the relative merit of such tactics. The present research shows that for these tactics to influence continuance intentions, they must be provided by a relevant service agent and support a customer's psychological need for autonomy, competence and relatedness. The hypothesized impact of psychological need support on continuance intentions was also observed to be contingent upon the fit between the task and the type of assistance provided, where the level of task complexity attenuated this fit.

Self-recovery after self-service technology failures: do motivations and self-efficacy matter?

“…This supports previous findings, which found that when customers recognize the value of a behavior, they would feel more positive about it and be more inclined to perform that behavior (Osei-Frimpong, 2017; Wang and Hou, 2015). For example, engaging in self-recovery after an SST failure is a learning opportunity that helps customers better understand troubleshooting processes and gain experience in solving similar future problems (Keating and Aslan, 2023). Self-recovery will result in customers' increased ability, knowledge, skills and self-improvement (Dong et al.…”

“…First, with research on SST failure and service recovery still in its early stage, most of the extant studies are based on situations where the service provider is involved in the service recovery process, either in the form of firm-recovery or joint-recovery (e.g. Dao and Theotokis, 2021; Keating and Aslan, 2023; Lee and Cranage, 2018; Mattila and Cho, 2011). This study extends prior studies by shifting the focus of academic inquiry to customers' self-recovery in a disrupted SST setting and shedding light on how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations stimulate customers to perform self-recovery.…”

“…So far, research on firm recovery and joint recovery scenarios has been well-documented (Dabholkar and Spaid, 2012; Dao and Theotokis, 2021; Keating and Aslan, 2023; Le et al. , 2022; Lee and Cranage, 2018; Mattila and Cho, 2011).…”

“…However, the requisite involvement of customers in SST settings broadens the scope for potential service failures (Collier et al. , 2017; Keating and Aslan, 2023). A recent survey of 1,000 retail shoppers (CNNBusiness, 2022) reveals that 67% of customers had encountered at least one failure when using self-checkout kiosks.…”

“…self-checkout machines, multimedia kiosks, mobile wallets and self-scanning devices) offer retailers new ways to improve service quality, reduce operating costs, achieve better operational efficiency and provide customers with fast, convenient and optimized service experience (Chiu et al, 2010;Dabholkar and Spaid, 2012). However, the requisite involvement of customers in SST settings broadens the scope for potential service failures (Collier et al, 2017;Keating and Aslan, 2023). A recent survey of 1,000 retail shoppers (CNNBusiness, 2022) reveals that 67% of customers had encountered at least one failure when using self-checkout kiosks.…”