The effect of perceived intrusion on consumers ...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia Computer Science 5 (2011) 841–848

The Fifth International Workshop on RFID Technology - Concepts, Applications, Challenges

The effect of perceived intrusion on consumers’ attitude towards using an RFID-based marketing program Harold Boecka,*, Jean Roya, Fabien Durifa, Marc Grégoirea a

Université de Sherbrooke, 2500, boulevard de l’Université, Sherbrooke, J1K 2R1, Canada

Abstract Purpose. Several retailers are currently implementing marketing programs based on RFID. This paper questions in a general manner whether consumers are ready to adopt RFID in an everyday setting and if they are willing to interact with the technology during their shopping experience. Design. Data from 388 respondents was collected through an experimental design with scenarios based on RFID programs currently being tested or used in retail stores worldwide. An ANOVA was calculated on the consumer’s perceived intrusion and a structural equation model was performed on the most intrusive scenario. Findings. Findings reveal that a basic RFID loyalty program will not generate more perceived intrusion than a regular loyalty program which indicates that consumers are ready to carry RFID tags that identify them at a distance by retailers. However, by increasing the program’s intrusion factor, a surprisingly elevated threshold is found beyond which the consumer’s attitude towards adopting the program will be negatively affected. Keywords: RFID; Privacy; intrusion; attitude; consumer resistance; adoption

1. Introduction Retailers are increasingly adopting Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology for marketing purposes. At a high level, the technology is quite simple: the consumer carries a tag which emits a radio signal that communicates to an antenna in the store. The objective is to automatically identify consumers at a distance, track their movement within the store and/or collect behavioral data in order to offer a quicker, more personalized and enhanced buying experience [1]. Business research on RFID technology has predominantly focused on logistics and supply chain management applications where the physical object being tagged is either the truck, pallet, case or item [2]. In return, very little

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-819-821-8000; fax: +1-819-821-7934. E-mail address: [email protected]

1877–0509 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Elhadi Shakshuki and Prof. Muhammad Younas. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2011.07.116

842

Harold Boeck et al. / Procedia Computer Science 5 (2011) 841–848

research has been done on the impact of RFID tracking consumers even though this aspect has received impressive media coverage during the introductory phase of passive UHF RFID. Researchers interested in the technology have noticed that consumer-oriented RFID research is scarce and fragmented [3] and that research on RFID for marketing purposes is still rare [4]. Because RFID affects consumers and their willingness to adopt the technology is often overlooked [5], several authors have recommended that future research on RFID be focused on a consumer perspective [3,4]. This paper directly addresses those recommendations by studying the use of an RFID enabled marketing tool that interacts directly with consumers by having them be the tagged “object”. 1.1. Examples of consumers being tagged with RFID American based Dairy Queen restaurants recently implemented an RFID-based loyalty program [6]. The restaurant attaches a 13,56MHz RFID tag to their customers’ mobile phone on a voluntary basis. The customers receive coupons via text messages on their mobile phone and redeem them by scanning their RFID tag. The restaurant benefits by offering coupons to specific customers based on past purchases, tracking the success of their promotions, exercising more control over the validity of the discounts, and tracking their customers. Similar to the Dairy Queen example, 175 McDonald’s restaurants in Japan use near-field RFID on mobile phones to facilitate coupons redemption [7]. Esso and Mobile gas stations have been using RFID for quite some time in order to quicken the payment transaction with the Speedpass. These RFID applications are expected to gain very strong momentum. Mobile phone manufacturer Ericsson's VP of systems architecture has predicted that all new mobile phones will be equipped with RFID in a very near future [8]. This prediction is impressive but should not shadow the fact that RFID is already being pervasively adopted by companies as statistics indicate that there are currently 10 million RFID cards in Canada alone [9]. Arguably the most controversial RFID consumer tagging is performed in Spain at the Baja Beach Club. The nightclub offers to implant VIP members with a subcutaneous Low Frequency tag by means of a syringe [10]. The tag used on humans is akin to the injectable animal identification transponder used to track pets or cattle when in close proximity. This incredibly unusual utilization of RFID tags enables the clubgoers to forego carrying their purse or wallet, a benefit when wearing a bathing suit, and grants them special VIP access. Should the consumer elect to remove the tag, a supposedly simple surgical procedure is then necessary. Bar Soba in Scotland is the only other example we have encountered of such an invasive use of RFID to track consumers [11]. Other retailers have instead opted to insert the RFID tag on an object the consumer carries instead of within the consumer. 1.2. Consumer resistance These innovative companies and their marketing managers are expecting that consumers are ready and willing to adopt RFID during their shopping experience. However, should we believe stories reported in the press, previous implementations have experienced impressive resistance from certain consumer groups and could herald the failure of future initiatives if lessons from their experience are not taken into consideration. As one of the earliest adopters of consumer-based RFID, the German retailer Metro Group has experienced significant consumer resistance over their RFID loyalty card initiative. The company became the target of protests, received extensive negative media coverage and ended up recalling 10,000 RFID loyalty cards and discontinuing the program [12] over fears that the RFID tags “hidden within the card's plastic, could transmit identifying information about consumers at distances of three feet or more via invisible radio waves (… and) could be read secretly, right through a shopper's purse, backpack or wallet” [13]. The retail giant Wal-Mart is also suspected to have withdrawn an important RFID initiative for the same reason [14]. The main advocacy group was CASPIAN which demonizes the technology by associating RFID “spychips” with the coming of the anti-Christ [15] and an Orwellian state [15]. It has also initiated boycotts of consumer goods manufacturer Gillette and clothing retailer Benetton over what seems to be only a proof of concept video and flawed sources of information [16]. Regardless of whether it was justified, the subsequent fear was sufficient to raise consumer concerns as 40 privacy and civil liberties organizations across the world called for a moratorium of RFID item-level tracking [17]. Technology is currently transforming marketing [18]. This is especially true for RFID technology, which can deliver important benefits that, can be a source of competitive


843

marketing advantage in the retail and service industry. However, it can also when wrongly used, be a cause of consumer prejudice and potential backlash [19]. 1.3. Research objective As is the case with similar self-service technologies [20] and high tech innovations [21], consumer acceptance is a central issue in the proper implementation and return on investment of an RFID marketing initiative. Its incorrect use could potentially signify lose of sales and a wasted investment in the short term but more importantly its impact could hinder the company’s brand and thereby affect the market value of the firm in a longer perspective. While many businesses focus on the benefits of the technology to justify its use [22], they would be wise to remember that ultimately the consumer must adopt the technology [5]. As such, this paper questions in a general manner whether consumers are ready to adopt RFID in an everyday setting and if they are willing to interact with the technology during their shopping experience. 2. Background

2.1. RFID privacy, intrusion and adoption Of the little RFID research that has been performed on consumer related aspects, much of it has focused on the concept of privacy which has been identified as a major practical implementation challenge [4,23] and as the most significant cost to consumers [24]. The attitude consumers have regarding the safeguard of their privacy influences their propensity to buy tagged items [25] or to accept to use items that contain residual RFID [5]. This implies that the more importance consumers attach to their privacy, the less likely they will adopt RFID technology in retailing [5,26,27]. However, when RFID is involved, consumers seem moderately privacy aware [27] which indicates that they might be willing to accept the use RFID technology in marketing. This study differs from previous RFID research that focuses on protecting consumer privacy. We assume that privacy cannot be completely protected when RFID technology is involved, but rather it is intruded upon at various levels. Instead of evaluating the attitude consumers hold towards their privacy and then evaluating their propensity to accept RFID, this study presents a different paradigm by evaluating the perceived intrusiveness of an RFID system as the central construct. We define intrusion as the consumer’s perception that the company abusively penetrates into his/her private life [28]. Since it is up to the consumer to determine the level at which abuse is felt, intrusion will differ by individual which is why we will refer to “perceived intrusion”. This is in line with [29] who believe that privacy should be established on a continuum in regards to previous experience and culture. Following this, two research hypotheses are proposed: H1: An increase in a marketing program’s RFID intrusion level translates into an increase of the consumer’s perceived intrusion. H2: An increase in the perceived intrusion affects the consumer’s attitude towards adopting the RFID-based marketing program. 3. Methodology: experimental design scenarios To assess the impact of RFID intrusion, an experiment comprising of four loyalty program scenarios with different intrusion levels was developed. It is assumed that RFID loyalty programs vary based on their level of intrusion thus resulting in a variation of the level of perceived intrusion consumers will have. The use of scenarios as a data collection strategy instead of collecting data directly in a store allows to evaluate multiple variations of the use of RFID technology in a controlled environment while limiting variations of external secondary factors thereby increasing the reliability of the data collected. Theoretical scenarios were used instead of a working proof of concept in a laboratory to reduce the costs and complexity of the study. Additionally, the scenario method is well accepted in

844


research as it allows to explore complex constructs which are difficult to operationalize in practice [30] as is the case with the study at hand. 3.1. The scenarios The context presented within the scenarios is that of a clothing retailer that uses a loyalty card to enhance customer service. This context was chosen as it was evaluated that the majority of respondents would be familiar with the setting and therefore it would be easy for them to visualize the scenario. According to [31], when using the scenario method it is important that the respondents be familiar with the context in which they must imagine their reactions. The clothing industry was also chosen because it has demonstrated a high interest for using RFID technology to improve customer experience in the retail store. The loyalty program scenarios are based on RFID programs currently being tested or used in retail stores worldwide. The scenarios were adjusted after performing a pre-test among 33 respondents. The final scenarios are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Adjusted RFID Loyalty Program Scenarios

Without RFID

With RFID

Scenarios Intrusion factor Magnetic card is scanned manually at the Point of Sale (PoS) and interactive kiosk Automatically identify the consumer at a certain distance from the PoS and interactive kiosk

2

3

4

x

x

x

The system tracks the consumer's path in the store

x

x

The system measures the time the consumer spends in store

x

x

The sales staff automatically identifies the consumer when entering the store

1 x

x

The first scenario does not include RFID technology and serves as a control group. The respondent must imagine himself or herself using a common magnetic loyalty card that is swiped in the interactive kiosks to receive purchasing recommendations and promotional discounts based on their personal profile. The three other scenarios incorporate RFID technology with incremental intrusion factors. Each scenario increases the intrusion level by building on the intrusion factors of the previous scenario and incorporating new ones. 3.2. Experimental procedure A convenience sample composed of North American university students was used. Even though the sampling is not representative of the general population, it does represent a segment which spends an important portion of its revenues on clothing and many retailers envisioning to use RFID are targeting this population. The sampling choice is also justified since previous studies have successfully measured consumer perceptions by sampling student populations [32] when using an experimental design to evaluate new technology adoption [33] or in similar fields of interests when evaluating perceptions to RFID item tagging [25]. Moreover, an excellent case is made for the use of this sample which can contribute to stronger results in certain specific conditions and which does not affect the validity of the results [31]. We believe that our sampling method is particularly appropriate to the study at hand because the respondents are more familiar with the technology and can therefore better imagine the scenarios. Additionally, demographic characteristics seem to be less efficient in predicting self-service technology usage than the anxiety a consumer experiences towards technology [20]. Therefore, the relatively younger age of the sample


should not affect the validity of the study’s results. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four scenarios so that the 1X4 experimental design allowed for between group comparisons. More respondents were assigned to scenario 4 in order to achieve a higher sampling so as to enable more advanced statistical analysis using structural equation modeling (SEM). After being exposed to one of the four scenarios, respondents completed the self-administered questionnaire. 3.3. Perceived intrusion and attitude scales In order to assess perceived intrusion of RFID technology by the consumer, a perceived intrusion scale was developed based on the privacy classification of [34]. It was adapted to the context of using RFID technology in marketing and two additional items were developed to generate five items evaluated on a seven point Likert-type scale. The attitude towards the RFID loyalty program was evaluated based on three items provided by [35] and rated on the same scale. To confirm the validity of both scales, the two-step approach recommended by [36] was followed. First, an exploratory factor analysis using the orthogonal VARIMAX rotation algorithm was performed. The Kaiser criterion was used to determine the number of factors to keep. Then, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to evaluate the internal consistency. Secondly, confirmatory factor analysis was performed using the maximum likelihood estimation. 4. Results The final sampling resulted in 388 valid responses comprised of 56.7% females and 43.3% male respondents whose average age of 22 varied between 18 and 48. 4.1. Hypothesis 1 In order to test if an increase in a marketing program’s RFID intrusion factor translates into an increase of the consumer’s perceived intrusion, an ANOVA was perform on the perceived intrusion of the four scenarios. Three requirements must be met before comparing means of several groups using an analysis of variance [37]. Independent observations were achieved by the random distribution of the questionnaires. Normality was tested using the standardized residual, but data from the fourth scenario did not meet this criterion. Nonetheless, we proceeded with the calculations as ANOVA is recognized not to be very sensitive to non-normality. Equal variance was tested using Levene's test of equality of error variances. The analysis of variance confirms that the different RFID scenarios have a significant impact on the consumer’s perception of intrusion (p = .001 < 0.05). In the case of exploratory research, [37] suggests using Scheffe as a post hoc test whose results are presented in Table 2. Next, the polynomial contrast was analyzed to verify the relationship of the variables. A Linear contrast was confirmed (p = 0.001). Table 2: Post Hoc test results for the perceived intrusion of the scenarios

Post Hoc (Scheffe) Mean Difference Scenarios 1 2 3 4

N 62 63 68 195

Intrusion Mean 2 3 4.2839 .3098 .2220 4.5937 .0878 4.5059 5.0092 p .10; ** p .05

4 .7254 ** .4156 .5033 *

845

846


4.2. Hypothesis 2 Results from the exploratory factor analysis presented a unidimensional construct for both constructs (Perceived Intrusion; Attitude). Therefore, the constructs were not modified. In terms of validity, the KMO (0.836; 0.736) and the p-value (0.000; 0.000) from Bartlett's test of sphericity indicate that the items are sufficiently correlated to continue the analysis. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha (0.847; 0.904) was superior to the 0.7 limit proposed by [38]. A simple structural equation model was performed on scenario 4, the scenario demonstrating the most perceived intrusion. One item was removed from the perceived intrusion construct in order to stabilize the model resulting in values that meet SEM recommended standards [39]. The adjusted model established a statistically significant negative (-0.42) relationship between both constructs. 5. Discussion and conclusion The broad aim of the article was to evaluate whether consumers are ready to adopt RFID in an everyday setting and if they are willing to interact with the technology during their shopping experience. This was achieved by specifically answering the following two hypotheses. (H1) An increase in a marketing program’s RFID intrusion level translates into an increase of the consumer’s perceived intrusion, which will in turn (H2) affect the consumer’s attitude towards adopting the RFID-based marketing program. Using a methodological process based on experimental design scenarios (n = 388), two important conclusions can be generated. First, the study confirms that when consumers perceive that an RFID loyalty program intrudes into their privacy, it will negatively affect their attitude towards using the program. However, the study also indicates that a basic RFID loyalty program will not generate more perceived intrusion than a regular barcode loyalty program. Secondly, there exists an intrusion threshold beyond which the consumers' willingness to participate to the RFID loyalty program is affected. 5.1. Are consumers ready to be tagged with RFID? A significantly stronger perception of intrusion among the sampled group is not created when comparing a traditional loyalty program (Scenario 1) with an RFID loyalty program that automatically scans the consumer at a distance (Scenario 2). Moreover, the study did not succeed in creating a significant perceived intrusion reaction from respondents that were presented a situation where the RFID loyalty program automatically tracks and measures consumer instore behavior (scenario 3) when compared with the traditional program (Scenario 1). This result came as a surprise to the researchers. Scenario 3 had been augmented to include an additional intrusion factor to make certain it significantly stood out after our pre-test indicated that it did not significantly increase the perceived intrusion when comparing it to Scenario 2. In fact, we expected a significant perception of intrusion between Scenario 3 and Scenario 2 and even more between Scenario 3 and Scenario 1 because Scenario 3 includes the characteristics that the privacy advocacy groups are strongly denouncing. Although the results clearly indicate that the consumers' perceived intrusion increases linearly with the different scenarios presented, it seems that the intrusion factors were not sufficiently elevated to be perceived as significantly different than a traditional loyalty program. This indicates that consumers are ready to carry RFID tags that identify them at a distance by retailers. 5.2. Intrusion threshold The consumers' indifference to the use of RFID as noted above is true up to a certain threshold after which the RFID program will be considered as more intrusive. Surprisingly, this intrusion threshold was quite elevated and, based on the limits of our experimentation scenarios, was only achieved in the most extreme RFID scenario. The tipping point seems to be when the sales staff automatically identifies the consumers as they enter the store (Scenario 4). Beyond this point the RFID loyalty program will be perceived as significantly more intrusive than a traditional loyalty program (Scenario 1) and will be an important factor in having consumers develop a negative attitude towards the marketing initiative. It is interesting to note that this extreme scenario has already been


847

implemented at several locations [10,40] by retailers who aim to develop an advanced form of personalized service to increase the satisfaction of selected clients. Through their experiments, these businesses will serve as living laboratories that will confirm whether consumers, and which consumers, are willing to trade a portion of their privacy to gain a better customer experience. 5.3. Are marketers ready to tag consumers with RFID? Our findings seem to be in contradiction with the apparent beliefs held by early adopting retailers when they decided to retract their RFID marketing initiative after being faced with stark opposition from advocacy groups [12,14]. Our results indicate that consumers, when being identified at a certain distance or even having their movements tracked and their behavior measured while in the store, generally won't react as strongly as certain advocacy groups indicated. These very strong initial reactions from the public were perhaps limited to a few, but very vocal extremist groups and arose from the reaction towards a new and misunderstood technology. Lessons can be learned from these early experiences that paved the way for many recent marketing initiatives that integrate RFID technology. Recent examples of RFID carrying consumers include loyalty cards that provide paperless coupons at checkout [41], provide recall notices and refunds [42], incorporate the consumers' health diary [43] and an RFIDenabled wristband that serves as wallet [44]. The study therefore recommends that marketing managers proceed cautiously with RFID enabled marketing initiatives while keeping in sight their consumers’ intrusion threshold.

Acknowledgement This article is an updated and extended version of a shorter paper presented at the European Marketing Academy conference under Boeck, H., Roy, J., Grégoire, M. et Durif, F. (2010). Are Consumers Ready to Accept RFID Technology in Marketing? In proceedings of the 39th European Marketing Academy (EMAC) Conference. Copenhagen (Danemark), 1-4 juin.

References 1 Swedberg, Claire (2010) “Organic Clothing Retailer Makes Shopping Personal.” RFID Journal. [online] Available from: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/7333 2 Boeck, Harold and Fosso Wamba, Samuel (2008) “RFID and buyer-seller relationships in the retail supply chain.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(6), pp. 433-460. 3 Slettemeås, Dag (2009) “RFID—the ‘Next Step’ in Consumer–Product Relations or Orwellian Nightmare? Challenges for Research and Policy.” Journal of Consumer Policy, 32(3), pp. 219-244. 4 Uhrich, Fabian, Sandner, Uwe, Resatsch, Florian, Leimeister, Jan Marco and Krcmar, Helmut (2008) “RFID in Retailing and Customer Relationship Management.” The Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 23(13), pp. 219-234. 5 Crazier, Joseph A, Jensen, Andrew S and Dave, Dinesh S (2008) “The Impact of Consumer Perceptions of Information Privacy and Security Risks on the Adoption of Residual RFID Technologies.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 23(14). 6 Albright, Brian (2009) “Dairy Queen Pilots RFID-Based Mobile Marketing Platform.” RFID Update. [online] Available from: http://www.rfidupdate.com/articles/index.php?id=1808 7 Swedberg, Claire (2008) “McDonald s Japan Brings Discounts to Phones.” RFID Journal. [online] Available from: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/4108 8 Lamos, Natasha (2009) “RFID in all new mobiles by next summer.” ZDNet Asia. [online] Available from: http://www.zdnetasia.com/rfid-inall-new-mobiles-by-next-summer-62055439.htm (Accessed 1 December 2009) 9 Williams, Andy (2009) “EMV takes aim at U.S.” SecureIDNews. [online] Available from: http://www.secureidnews.com/2009/05/26/emvtakes-aim-at-u-s (Accessed 1 December 2009) 10 Morton, Simon (2004) “Barcelona clubbers get chipped.” BBC News. [online] Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3697940.stm 11 Lockton, Vance and Rosenberg, Richard S. (2005) “RFID: The Next Serious Threat to Privacy.” Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4), pp. 221-231. 12 Black, Jane (2004) “Shutting Shopping Bags to Prying Eyes.” BusinessWeek. [online] Available from: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc2004035_8506_tc073.htm 13 Caspian (2004) “Metro s Decision to Drop Card.” Spychips.com. [online] Available from: http://www.spychips.com/metro/press-release-feb27.html (Accessed 1 December 2009)

848


14 Gilbert, Alorie, Richard Shim (2003) “Wal-Mart cancels ‘smart shelf’ trial.” CNET News. [online] Available from: http://news.cnet.com/21001017_3-1023934.html 15 Albrecht, Katherine and McIntyre, Liz (2005) Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID, Thomas Nelson. 16 Roberti, Mark (2003) “Benetton Talks About RFID Plans.” RFID Journal. [online] Available from: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleprint/469/-1/1 17 Caspian et al. (2003) “RFID Position Statement of Consumer Privacy and Civil Liberties Organization.” Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. [online] Available from: http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/RFIDposition.htm (Accessed 2009) 18 Rust, Roland T. and Espinoza, Francine (2006) “How technology advances influence business research and marketing strategy.” Journal of Business Research, 59(10-11), pp. 1072-1078. 19 Eckfeldt, Bruce (2005) “What does RFID do for the consumer?” Communications of the ACM, 48(9), pp. 77-79. 20 Meuter, Matthew L, Ostrom, Amy L, Bitner, Mary Jo and Roundtree, Robert (2003) “The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies.” Journal of Business Research, 56(11), pp. 899-906. 21 Kulviwat, Songpol, Bruner II, Gordon C. and Al-Shuridah, Obaid (2009) “The role of social influence on adoption of high tech innovations: The moderating effect of public/private consumption.” Journal of Business Research, 62(7), pp. 706-712. 22 Boeck, Harold, Durif, Fabien, Grégoire, Marc and Roy, Jean (2009) “Should consumers be afraid of RFID technology ? A confrontation between literature and experts,” in 38th European Marketing Academy (EMAC) Conference, Nantes (France). 23 Bhattacharya, Mithu, Chu, Chao-hsien and Mullen, Tracy (2007) “RFID Implementation in Retail Industry: Current Status, Issues, and Challenges,” in Decision Science Institute (DSI) Conference, Phoenix AZ. 24 Sill, Heather E., Fisher, Sandra L. and Wasserman, Michael E. (2008) “Consumer reactions to potential intrusiveness and benefits of RFID.” International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 7(1), p. 76. 25 Angeles, Rebecca (2007) “An empirical study of the anticipated consumer response to RFID product item tagging.” Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(4), pp. 461-483. 26 Müller-Seitz, Gordon, Dautzenberg, Kirsti, Creusen, Utho and Stromereder, Christine (2009) “Customer acceptance of RFID technology: Evidence from the German electronic retail sector.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(1), pp. 31-39. 27 Rothensee, M. and Spiekermann, S. (2008) “Between Extreme Rejection and Cautious Acceptance: Consumers Reactions to RFID-Based IS in Retail.” Social Science Computer Review, 26(1), pp. 75-86. 28 Lalos, Marco and Cestre, Ghislaine (2008) “Paying today or tomorrow? The consequences of implementing intrusive marketing practices on customer attitudes,” in 37th European Marketing Academy (EMAC) Conference, Brighton (England). 29 Foxman, Ellen R and Kilcoyne, Paula (1993) “Information Technology, Marketing Practice, and Consumer Privacy: Ethical Issues.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 12(1), pp. 106-119. 30 Bitner, Mary Jo (1992) “Servicescapes : Impact of on Customers and Employees.” Journal of Marketing, 56(2), pp. 57-71. 31 Ueltschy, Linda C., Laroche, Michel, Eggert, Axel and Bindl, Uta (2007) “Service quality and satisfaction: an international comparison of professional services perceptions.” Journal of Services Marketing, 21(6), pp. 410-423. 32 Kalamas, Maria, Laroche, Michel and Makdessian, Lucy (2008) “Reaching the boiling point: Consumers negative affective reactions to firm-attributed service failures.” Journal of Business Research, 61(8), pp. 813-824. 33 Bruner II, Gordon C. and Kumar, Anand (2005) “Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices.” Journal of Business Research, 58(5), pp. 553-558. 34 Miyazaki, Anthony D. and Fernandez, Ana (2001) “Consumer Perceptions of Privacy and Security Risks for Online Shopping.” The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), pp. 27-44. 35 Yi, Youjae and Jeon, Hoseong (2003) “Effects of Loyalty Programs on Value Perception , Program Loyalty , and Brand Loyalty.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3). 36 Anderson, James C. and Gerbing, David W. (1988) “Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.” Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), pp. 411-423. 37 Keppel, Geoffrey (1973) Design and analysis: A researcher s handbook, Prentice-Hall. 38 Nunnally, Jum C. (1978) Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology) 2nd ed., Mcgraw-Hill College. 39 Hair, Joseph F., Tatham, Ronald L., Anderson, Rolph E. and Black, William (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis (5th Edition), Prentice Hall. 40 Abbas, Muntazir (2009) “Yes Bank Debuts RFID in New Delhi Branch.” CXOtoday.com. [online] Available from: http://www.cxotoday.com/cxo/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=99711 (Accessed 1 December 2009) 41 Swedberg, Claire (2009) “MoLo Unveils Universal RFID-enabled Loyalty Card.” RFID Journal. [online] Available from: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/5260 42 Swedberg, Claire (2009) “RFID Is TOP Priority for Store Loyalty Cards.” RFID Journal. [online] Available from: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/4753 43 Swedberg, Claire (2009) “Italian Pharmacy Gains Loyalty With RFID.” RFID Journal. [online] Available from: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/5323 44 Bacheldor, Beth (2009) “H20oohh! Water Park Offers Guests Cashless Convenience.” RFID Journal. [online] Available from: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/4806