정민주(2012)항공사 kiosk 사용의도에 영향을 미치는 변수에 관한연구

1. Kiosk A Study on Attributes affecting the Use of Kiosk at the Airport 2012 8

4. 2012 7 () () ()

5. . , . . , , , 2 , . - , , , 06 , Hillsong Church London, Brunel , , - . . , . . . - iv -

6. Kiosk 2006 Self Check-in Kiosk. Kiosk , , . Kiosk 6 Kiosk . SelfCheck-in Service Kiosk , Kiosk . Kiosk TBSS . TBSS , . Kiosk , , , 4 , . 1 Kiosk 228 , , (+) , (+) . . Kiosk , . - v -

7. 1 1 1.1 1 1.2 2 1.3 3 1.3.1 3 1.3.2 3 2 5 2.1 (TBSS) 5 2.1.1 5 2.1.2 7 2.1.3 (TBSS) 9 2.1.4 (TBSS) 14 2.2 16 2.2.1 (TRA) 17 2.2.2 (TPB) 18 2.2.3 (TAM) 20 2.2.4 (UTAUT) 21 2.2.5 (TAM) 26 2.3 29 2.3.1 29 2.3.2 29 2.3.3 34 - vi -

8. 2.4 42 2.4.1 42 2.4.2 43 3 45 3.1 45 3.2 46 3.2.1 Kiosk 46 3.2.2 , 48 3.3 49 3.3.1 Kiosk 49 3.3.2 53 3.3.3 54 3.3.4 54 3.4 55 3.4.1 55 3.4.2 56 3.4.3 56 4 57 4.1 57 4.1.1 57 4.1.2 60 4.2 64 4.2.1 65 4.2.2 69 4.2.3 71 4.2.3 73 4.3 80 4.3.1 (AMOS) 80 (1) 80 (2) 86 - vii -

9. 5 89 5.1 89 5.2 90 5.3 91 93 101ABSTRACT 108 - viii -

10. < 1.1> 4< 2.1> TBSS (Dabholkar) 11< 2.2> TBSS , (Dabholkar) 12< 2.3> TBSS , (Dabholkar) 13< 2.4> TBSS 14< 2.5> UTAUT 22< 2.6> 25< 2.7> 26< 2.8> Rogers 5 39< 3.1> Kiosk 52< 3.2> 53< 3.3> 54< 3.4> 54< 3.5> 55< 4.1> 60< 4.2> 61< 4.3> Kiosk (1) 62< 4.4> Kiosk (2) 63< 4.5> 68< 4.6> 70< 4.7> (AMOS) 72< 4.8> () 75< 4.9> (AVE) 77< 4.10> 78< 4.11> 79< 4.12> 83< 4.13> - () 85< 4.14> - () 85< 4.15> SEM 87< 4.16> 88 - ix -

11. < 2.1> (TRA), Ajzen & Fishbein(1980) 18< 2.2> (TPB), Ajzen(1985) 19< 2.3> (TAM), Davis(1989) 21< 2.4> (UTAUT), Venkatesh(2003) 24< 2.5> (IDT), Rogers(2003) 31< 3.1> 46< 4.1> 85< 4.2> AMOS 86 - x -

12. 1 1.1 . . . 2006 SelfCheck-in Kiosk . Kiosk , . Kiosk . 5 Kiosk . Self Check-in Service Kiosk , Kiosk . Kiosk , . Kiosk Kiosk , , . - 1 -

13. 1.2 Kiosk . Kiosk 228 .AMOS 18.0 , Kiosk , . Kiosk Kiosk Kiosk . , Kiosk Kiosk . TBSS , . , Kiosk Kiosk . . . Kiosk . - 2 -

14. 1.3 1.3.1 . , (TBSS) (TAM) (IDT) Kiosk . , , . , 1 Kiosk . , SPSS 18.0 for Windows Amos 18.0 . , , , , .1.3.2 5 .1 , , .2 TBSS, , , .3 , .4 , , .5 , - 3 -

15. . 1.1 1 2 TBSS 3 4 5 - 4 -

16. 2 2.1 (Technology-Based Self-Service: TBSS) (Technology) . . . (TBSS: Technology-based Self-service) . Anselmsson(2001) (Self-Service) . - . (TBSS;Technology-based Self-service) .2.1.1 (Service) (Self Service) (Service)" . (Silvestro and Johnston,1990). (Johns, 1999). .(Bitner et al., 1997) , . .(Gronroos, 1998). . - 5 -

17. , , . . . , (Bateson, 1985). . (Bateson, 1985). . , . , , (Wang and Namen,2004). Bateson(1985), Bitner et al.(1997), Hoe and Dendry( 2002) . 1900 Kelly (Customized Service) . . . - 6 -

18. 2.1.2 (Service Encounter) (Service Encounter) . (Moment of Truth) (Shocktak, 1985). (Bitner, 1990: Bitner et al., 2000) . Carlzon(1987) . . . . . . . . , . , . , . . . - 7 -

19. (Walker et al., 2002) . . . , (Walker and Craig-Lees, 2000). . , . () , . . . . TBSS . TBSS . TBSS , . - 8 -

20. 2.1.3 (Technology-Based Self-Service:TBSS) (Dabholkar, 1994a) . (TBSS) (Dabholkar, 1994a). TBSS , (Debholkar, 1996, Anselmsson, 2001). Meuter(2000) TBSS . (2000) TBSS , . (Self ServiceTechnology:SST) . SST TBSS (Wang and Namen,2004). Kiosk TBSS . Dabholkar(1994a) TBSS . . TBSS . . , . Dabholkar TBSS . - 9 -

21. 1) , . () () . 2) . . 3) . , . TBSS 8 2.1 . TBSS . . TBSS , , , . TBSS . 1.1 . - 10 -

22. 2.1 TBSS (Dabholkar) - - CELL 1A CELL 2A ( ) () . . CELL 1B CELLB . ( ) . . CELL 3A CELL 4A ( ) / CELL 3B CELL 4B ( ) . . TBSS , , , . TBSS , ATM, , , . TBSS . - 11 -

23. . . . Dabholkar , , , , TSBB . Dabholkar 2.2. 2.2 TBSS , (Dabholkar) - - CELL 2 CELL 1 () (AA) CELL 3 CELL 4 / . TBSS Dabholkar(1994) Anselmsson(2001) (Kiosk) . Wang Namen(2004) , Dabholkar(1994) Anselmsson(2001) . TBSS Cell 1 . Cell 1 (Kiosk) , . Cell1 - 12 -

24. . Cell2 (: ) . 2.3 TBSS , (Dabholkar) / CELL 1 CELL 2 (: Kiosk) (: ) CELL 3 CELL 4 - 13 -

25. 2.1.4. (Technology-Based Self-Service; TBSS) , . TBSS TBSS . TBSS , TBSS . 2.4 TBSS Wang and (Relative Namen(2004) Advantage) Wang and (Observability) Namen(2004) Ram(1987) . (Complexity) Davis(1989) Ram(1987) (Perceived Risk) . Davis(1989) Wang and (Compatability) Namen(2004) Dabholkar (Speed) (1996) Dabholkar (Control) (1996) Dabholkar and Bagozzi (Reliability) (2002) - 14 -

26. Davis et al. (Perceived (1989)Ease of Use) Davis et al. (1989), (Perceived Davis et al.Usefulness) (1993) Dabholkar, (Enjoyment) (1994b) Bandura(1997)(Self Efficacy) Sheith(1981) Parasuraman (Habit) (2000) Meuter(2005) Dabholkar and (Perceived Bagozzi Anxiety) (2002) - 15 -

27. 2.2 TBSS . , , . . . (Theory of Reasoned Action: TRA), (Theory of Planned Behavior: TPB) . (Technology Acceptance Model), (Theory ofAcceptance and Use of Technology: :UTATU) . . (,2004). Kiosk Davis(1989)(TAM) , Kiosk . - 16 -

28. 2.2.1 (Theory of Reasoned Action: TRA) (Theory of Reasoned Action; TRA) , TRA Ajzen & Fishbein(1980) . . Ajzen & Fishbein . (Attitude towardBehavior) , . (Subjected Norm) . Ajzen & Fishbein(1975) . (TAM) . Davis et al(1989) , (Salse consensus) . Okeefe(1990) . . Davis et al.(1989) , . - 17 -

29. . (1999) . 2.1 . 2.1 (TRA), Ajzen & Fishbein(1980)2.2.2 (Theory of Planned Behavior: TPB) 1985 Ajzen . (Ajzen, 1985, 1989). , (Perceived Behavioral Control) . 2.2 . - 18 -

30. 2.2 (TPB), Ajzen(1985) . , (Ajzen, 1991, Mathieson 1991, Taylor & Todd, 1995b). , (Ajzen,1991, Matheison, 1991). Ruth(2000) , (Facilitatingconditions) (self-efficacy) . , , . (,2009). - 19 -

31. 2.2.3 (Techonolgy Acceptance Model: TAM) (Technology Acceptance Model: TAM) Davis . , . Saga andZmud(1994) 20 Davis(1989) (TAM) IS . Ajzen & Fishbein (1975, 1980) (PerceivedUsefulness) (Perceived Ease of Use) (Attitude) (Behavioral Intention) (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). . , , . , . . , . . . Mathieson(1991) - 20 -

32. Adams, Nelson Todd(1992) , , , . Hendrickson, Messey Cronan(1993) . TAM . 2.3 Davis (David and Venkatech, 1996). 2.3 (TAM), Davis(1989)2.2.4 (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Useof Technology: UTAUT) Venkatesh(2003) 8 , . 8 , 40% 69%(Adjusted R) . UTAUT 8 2.5 . - 21 -

33. 2.5 UTAUT Fishbein & (TRA) Davis et al. TRA Ajzen(1975) IS , IT TRA TAM Davis(1989), Venkatech &(TAM) Davis(2000) TAM2 TAM TRA Ajzen (1991) Taylor & (TPB) : DEcomposed Theory of Planned Todd(1995b) Behaviour(DTPB) TAM TAM TPB Taylor & TPB Todd(1995)(C-TAM -TPB) TRA TPB Triandis PC Triandis IS PC (1977), Tompson et(MPCU) al.(1991) . Davis et (MM) al.(1992) IS Rogers(1995 ),Moore & Benbasat IDT) 1960 (1991) - 22 -

34. Bandura SCT (1986), Compeau & (SCT) Higgisn (1995b) , , 3 2 . , , , , , 4 . 2.4 . 2.4 (UTAUT), Venkatesh(2003) (Performance Expectancy) - 23 -

35. (Venkatech, 2003). U- (2008) U- . (Social Influence) (, 2010). . (2010) . . 2.6 . - 24 -

36. 2.6 TAM; (Perceived Davis(1989) Usefulness) MM; Davis et (Extrinsic al.(1992) Motivation) MOCU; Thpmpson et(Performance (Job-fit) al.(1991) Expectancy) IDM; Moore & (Relative Benbasat (!991) Advantage) SCT; Compeau (Outcome & Expectation) Higgins(1995b) TRA, TAM, TPB, C-TAM-TPB; (Subjective Fishbeim & Norm) Ajzen(1975); Ajzen(1991) (social MPCU;Influence) Thompson et (Social Factors) al.(1991) IDM; Moore & (Image) Benbasat (1991) TAM; (Perceived Ease Davis(1989) of Use) MPCU; Thompson et (Effort (Complexity) al.(1991)Expectancy) IDM; Moore & (Ease of Use) Benbasat (1991) - 25 -

37. 2.2.5 . . 2.7 . 2.7 (Attitude toward Behaviour) (TRA) (Subjective Norm) (Perceived Usefulness) (Perviced Ease (TAM) of Use) (Subjective TRA/TPB . TAM2 Norm) (Attitude TRA towards Behaviour) (Subjective TRA (TPB) Norm) . IS (Perceived , Behavioral Control) TAM (Attitude toward TRA TPB Behaviour)(C-TAM TRA/TPB - 26 -

38. (Subjective Norm) (Perceived TPB -TPB) Control) (Perceived TAM Usefulness) (Job-fit) (Complexity) (Long-term Consequences) , ,PC (Affect towards , , , Use) (MPCU) (Social Factors) (Facilitating Conditions) (Extrinsic Motivation) (MM) (Intrinsic Motivation) (Relative Advantage) , (Compatability) (IDT) (Complexity) (Triability) (Obserbability) - . - 27 -

39. (Outcome Expectations-Pe rformance) - (Outcome . Expectation-Per . sonal) (SCT) (Self-efficacy) (Affect) (Anxiety) . Kiosk , Kiosk . - 28 -

40. 2.3 (Innovation Resistance) 2.3.1 . Havelock(1969) , , , , , ,, , 4,000 . Zaltman(1973) , 3 . , . Biemans(1992) Hirschman(1982) (tangible product) . Roger(1995) , ( ) , , .2.3.2 1940 , , , , , , . , . - 29 -

41. , . , Rogers(1983,1995) (Innovation Diffusion Theory) . , . . , (Rogers,1983). (Adoption) , (Rogers and Shoemaker,1971), (Diffusion) (Channels) (Time) (Communication) (Rogers, 1995).2.3.2.1 S (Rogers, 2003). , S . Rogers(2003) . - 30 -

42. 2.5 (IDT), Rogers(2003) (Innovator), (Early adopter), (Early majority), (Late majority), (Laggard) . 2.5% , . 13.5% . (34%) (34%) , , (Rogers, 2003) - 31 -

43. 2.3.2.2 . Rogers(2003) , , , , , , , . Rogers , , , , 5 .5 , . Kearns 25 27% . Rogers 5 26% . Rogers 5 .(1) (Relative Advantage) . , . . . , .(2) (Compatibility) , . . , . - 32 -

44. (3) (Complexity) . , . .(4) (Trialability) . , . .(5) (Observability) . . , .Rogers(1975) . 1989 Davis (TAM) , . - 33 -

45. 2.3.3 . , , , , 5 . . . , . . (Adopters), (Non-adopters), (Discontinuers) 3 (Rhoda, 2010).2.3.3.1 (Innovation Resistance) (IS) . Zaltman and Wallendork(1983) . Ram(1987) , . (Hirscheim andNewman, 1988) IS (Markus, 1983) . IS . Markus(1983) . , - 34 -

46. . Marakas andHornik(1996) . Martinko et al.(1996) , . , . Timmos(2003) , , , , . Lapointe and Revard (2005) , , ,, 5 IS . () (. ) . , . , , . Adams, Berner, and Wyatt(2004)IS . Lucus(1975) IS . , . Dewan, Lorenzi, andZheng(2004) . . . . . , . , . - 35 -

47. 2.3.3.2 (1) Sheth(1981) Sheth(1981) . 2 (Habit) (Perceived Risk) . (, 2005). , . . . . . 2 . 4 . , . , . , . - 36 -

48. . . . - . - ., , .(2) Ram(1987) Ram(1987) . Sheth(1983) . Ram , , . . . . . (Perceived Innovation Characteristics) Ram . (Relative advantage), (Compatibility), (Perceived - 37 -

49. Risk), (Complexity), (Inhilitiry effecton adoption of profitable) 5 , (Triability), (Diversity), (Communicability), (Reversibility), (Realization) 5 . (Consumer Characteristic) Ram . , , , , , . , , . (Charateristic of Progation Mecahnism) . , , . , , .(4) Rogers(1995) (Adoption) , (rejection) . , Rogers(1995) . Rogers , , , , , . - 38 -

50. . 2.8 Rogers 5 1) (knowledge) .2) (Persuasion) .3) (decision) . 4) (implementation) . (5) (confirmation) ) .(5) (1994) (1994) , . Crawford(1977) , , , . , , . Ram . Ram , , , . - 39 -

51. Ram , . Ram , . Rogers . , Ram . , , .(6) Sznigin Foxwell(1998) Sznigin and Forxwell(1998) . , . (Rejection), (Postponement), (Opposition) . (Rejection) . (Advantage) - 40 -

52. . . (RelativeAdavantage) . (Postponement) , . . . (Opposition) . . .(7) Bagozzi(1999) Bagozzi(1999) . (Goal) . (Goal setting) (Goal striving process) . , (initial resistance), (evaluaive process), (emotional resistance andacceptance), (Behavioral Intention), (adotion decision) . (choice of means), (action planning), (goal persuit), (control), (actual adoption or not) . - 41 -

53. , . , .2.4 , (Bouling, Kalra,Staelin&Zeithaml 1993). . , . , (Engel, Blackwell & Minaird, 1995). , , , IS . , , , . .2.4.1 (Intention on Continuos Use) Davis(1989) (Mechanism)1) , (Davis et al, 1989). , 1) (Mechanism) . , , . . - 42 -

54. , . , (Intention on ContinuosUse) . . , , (Dorsch, Grove &Darlen, 2000). , (Bhattacherjee. 2001).2.4.2 . Peterson(1988) . . , . Mckenna(1991) , , , - 43 -

55. . . - 44 -

56. 3 , . , .3.1 Kiosk . Sheith and Venkatech(2004) . , . , Kiosk . Kiosk . 1984 Rogers TAM , . Kiosk , . Kiosk Kiosk . 3.1 , . - 45 -

57. 3.1 3.2 .3.2.1 Kiosk Kiosk Kiosk . Kiosk Kiosk . , Ram(1993) , , ( ) . Meuter(2005) - 46 -

58. .3.2.1.1 , , Ram(1993) . 2 . , , , . , , , . TBSS Ram Markus(1983), Ang and Pavre(2004), Martinko et al.(1996) Rogers(2003) 8 , .H1-1. .H1-2. .H1-3. .3.2.1.2 Sheth(1981) . 2 (Habit) (Perceived Risk) - 47 -

59. . , . . Parasuraman(2000), Meuter(2005) .H1-4. .3.2.2 , Davis(1989) , . Sheith(1981), Ram(1987) . Bagozzi and Lee(1999) . . Davis(1989) . , .H2-1. .H2-2. . Davis(1989) Venkatesh(2003) UTAUT . - 48 -

60. . .H3-1. .3.3 , .3.3.1 Kiosk Kiosk Kiosk . Kiosk Kiosk Kiosk . Kiosk .3.3.1.1 Kiosk . , , . Kiosk . Kiosk , Kiosk .(1) - 49 -

61. , . . Check-in Check-in Kiosk , Check-in . 4 Likert 7 .(2) . , Self Check-in Kiosk Check-in Kiosk Check-in Kiosk . 3 Likert 7 .(3) . Kiosk , ATM Kiosk . . (-) , (+) . 3 Liker 7 . - 50 -

62. 3.3.1.2 (1) Kiosk Kiosk . Meuter(2005) . Kiosk . 3 Likert 7 . - 51 -

63. 3.1 Kiosk 13 Likert 7 1. Kiosk . 2. Kiosk . 3. Kiosk . 4. Kiosk . 5. Kiosk . 6. Kiosk . 7. Kiosk ( , ) . 8. Kiosk . 9. Kiosk . 10. Kiosk . 11. Kiosk ( , , ) . 12. Kiosk . 13. Kiosk . - 52 -

64. 3.3.2 . . , . . 5 Liker 7 . 3.2 5 Likert 7 1. Kiosk . 2. Kiosk . 3. Kiosk , . 4. Kiosk . 5. Kiosk . - 53 -

65. 3.3.3 Davis(1989) TAM TRA, TPB, UTAUT . Kiosk . Venkatech & Davis(2000), Wang et al(2003), Curran & Meuter(2005) 2 Likert 7 . 3.3 2 Likert 7 1. Kiosk . 2. Kiosk .3.3.4 . Kiosk , Kiosk . 2 Likert 7 . 1 7 . 3.4 2 Likert 7 1. Kiosk . 2. Kiosk . - 54 -

66. 3.4 3.4.1 . 8, Kiosk 13, 5, 4, 5 Likert 7 . 3.5 : 1 ~ 8 8 Kiosk : 1 ~ 13 13 Likert : 1 ~ 5 5 7 : 1 ~ 4 4 : 1 ~ 5 5 35 - 55 -

67. 3.4.2 Kiosk Kiosk Kiosk , . . Kiosk Kiosk . Kiosk . 1 Kiosk (pre-test) . 300 , 2011 11 3 12 3 4 . 243 228 .3.4.3 SPSS 18.0 . . (Exploratory Factor Analysis) . , AMOS 18.0 . - 56 -

68. 4 4.1 4.1.1 1 Kiosk . 243 228 93.8% . , , , . 4.1 Kiosk 98(43.0%), 130(57.0%) . 20 2(0.9%) 20 85(37.2%), 30 78(34.2%),40 42(18.4%), 50 24(10.5%), 60 1(0.4%) 2030 71.6% . Kiosk . 40 29.3% . 101 ~ 200 72(31.6%),201 ~ 300 53(23.2%), 301 400 40(17.5%), 401 ~ 500 26(11.4%), 501 25(11.0%) . 101 ~ 400 71.3% . () 74(32.5%), () 97(42.5%), () 46(20.2%) 95.2% . Kiosk - 57 -

69. . 78(34.2%), 73(32.0%) 66.2% 22(9.6%), 21(9.2%) . , . 4-1 . - 58 -

70. 4.1 () (%) 98 43 130 57 20 2 9 21 - 30 85 37.2 31 - 40 78 34.2 41 - 50 42 18.4 51 - 60 24 10.5 61 1 0.4 100 12 5.3 101 -200 72 31.6 201 - 300 53 23.2 301 - 400 40 17.5 401 - 500 26 11.4 501 25 11.0 () 11 4.8 () 74 32.5 () 97 42.5 () 46 20.2 73 32 3 1.3 20 8.8 78 34.2 6 2.6 5 2.2 22 9.6 21 9.2 228 100% - 59 -

71. 4.1.2 Kiosk Kiosk . , , Kiosk Kiosk , Kiosk , Kiosk , Kiosk . 1 . 4.2 . 4.2 () (%) 165 72.4 44 19.3 19 8.3 1( ) 92 40.4 2 ~ 5 122 53.5 6 ~ 9 5 2.2 10 9 3.9 1 ~ 3 119 52.2 4 ~ 6 70 30.7 7 ~ 9 24 10.5 10 15 6.6 1 165 72.4%, 44(19.3%) 19(8.3%) , . , - 60 -

72. . 87.3% 20 30 . 2-5 122(53.5%) , 92(40.4%) . 6-9 5(2.2%),10 9(3.9%) . . Kiosk Kiosk , Kiosk . 1~3 199(52.5%) . 4~6 70(30.7%), 7~9 24(10.5%), 10 15(6.6%) , (LCC) . (Full ServiceCarrier) . - 61 -

73. 4.3 Kiosk (1) () (%) 120 52.6 108 47.4 1 ~ 3 90 39.5 4 ~ 6 57 25.0 7 ~ 9 15 6.6 10 66 28.9 1 ~ 3 195 85.5 Kiosk 4 ~ 6 17 7.5 7 ~ 9 10 4.4 10 6 2.6 4.3 Kiosk . Kiosk 1 . 1 Kiosk . 1.2 . Kiosk 120(52.6%) , 108(47.4%) . 1~3 90(39.4%) . 10 66(28.9%) 4~6 57(25.0%), 7~9 15(6.6%) . Kiosk 1~3 195(85.5%) . 4 Kiosk 14.5% - 62 -

74. Kiosk . 4.4 Kiosk (2) () (%) 148 64.9 (: -) Kiosk 70 30.7 (: -) 13 5.7 (: -) 33 14.4 (: -) 96 42.1 133 58.3 61 26.8 152 66.7 Kiosk ATM 134 58.8 93 40.8 , , 59 25.9 1 0.0 4.3 Kiosk Kiosk . 1.1 1 , . Kiosk 148(56.1%) . 70(30.7%), 13(5.7%), - 63 -

75. 33(14.4%) . Kiosk . Kiosk 152 66.7% . , Kiosk 96(42.1%), 133(58.3%), 61(26.8%) . ATM 93(58.8%), 59(40.8%) Kiosk .4.2 (Structural EquationModel: SEM) . .(, 2003: ,2004) . (Exploratory Factor Analysis) , (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) (Habibi, 2008). Leavee(1988) , . . Rogers(1988) TAM , AMOS . - 64 -

76. 4.2.1 (Exploratory Factor Analysis) (Unintentionality) . (Reliability) . (score) . . (Dependability), (Stability),(Consistency), (Predictability), (Accuracy) (, 2010). (InternalConsistency) Cronbachs . Cronbachs (Carman & Zeller, 1979). (Split-half Reliability) Cronbachs . Cronbachs , . Nunnally(1967) Cronbachs 0.6, 0.8, 0.9 , Cronbachs 0.60.7 . . . - 65 -

77. . , . , . . (Exploratory Factor Analysis) . (Maximum Likelihood Estimate: MLE) (Oblimin) . . , 228 . (Francis, 2004) KMO Bartlett . Kiosk . , , , , . 4.5, 4.6 . (Eigen Value) 1 , (Factor Loading) 0.4 . Cronbachs - 66 -

78. . 1.1 Kiosk . 28 .40 2 26 . 9 .40 5 , 1 . 20 7 . KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) .917, Bartlett 5714.350, .000 . 0.6 . 83.8% . 7 , , , , , , , . - 67 -

79. 4.5 Cronbach 4 .903 .901 3 .866 .755 1.188 5.940 .906 2 .713 .697 8 .960 .942 1.179 11.837 .933 7 .849 .824 11 .953 .919 10 .753 .863 .297 13.324 .949 12 .728 .821 5 .925 .896 4 .823 .866 5.843 42.539 .941 3 .791 .785 1 .920 .888 4 .872 .842 3 .792 .773 .675 45.912 .938 2 .742 .838 5 .632 .533 1 .735 .895 .557 48.697 .936 2 .717 .868 1 .876 .999 7.036 83.875 .961 2 .714 .870 KMO .917 5104.339Bartlett 190 .000 - 68 -

80. 4.2.2 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) (Confirmatory FactorAnalysis) . (,2006). (,2007) SEM , 1.1 . GFI, AGFI, NFI, RFI, IFI, CFI 0.9 (Mulaik et al., 1989). RMR, RMESA 0.05 , 0.8 (Brown and Cudeck,1993). RMR SRMR SRMR . SRMR .029 . . - 69 -

81. 4.6 X (CMIN) 0.05 .000 () ( ) CMIN/d.f 3 1.788 ( X) SRMR 0.08 .029 ( ) GFI 0.9 .902 () AGFI 0.9 .861 () PGFI .640 () RMSEA 0.05 ~ 0.08 .059 () NFI 0.9 .950 () IFI 0.9 .977 () RFI 0.9 .936 () TLI=NNFI 0.9 .971 () CFI 0.9 .977 () PNFI .756 () PCFI .766 () - 70 -

82. 4.2.3 (Reliability Analysis) , . . 4.7 . 0.7 0.8 . AMOS (Squated Multiple Correlation:SMC) SPSS R 0.4 1 . 4.7 . - 71 -

83. 4.7 (AMOS) SMC 2 .668 .817 3 .735 .857 4 .905 .951 7 .887 .942Kiosk 8 .862 .928 10 .879 .937 11 .878 .937 12 .829 .910 3 .777 .882 4 .874 .935 5 .882 .939 1 .870 .933 2 .816 .903 3 .762 .873 4 .829 .911 5 .526 .725 1 .888 .943 2 .871 .933 1 .948 .974 2 .902 .950 - 72 -

84. 4.2.3 (Validity Analysis) (Validity) . , . . . (accurate) (consistent) . . . (Convergent Validity) (DiscriminantValidity) . .(1) (ConvergentValidity) . , (, 2008). (Standardized Factor Loading), (Average VarianceExtracted), (Construct Reliability) , 3 . - 73 -

85. , (C.R2)0.001 . - 75 -

87. (AVE: Average Variance Extracted) . . 0.5 . AVE Fornell andLarcker(1981) Hair et al.(2006) . AVE . AVE (Fornell & Lacker) = AVE (Hair et al.) = AVE AMOS Output . . (Construct Reliability) , .7 . . Construct Reliability = AMOS Output . AVE 1.1. - 76 -

88. Fornell and Larcker Hair et al. AVE Hair et al. .761 .5 . 0.9 . 4.9 (AVE) AVE AVE Alpha CR (Fornell (Hair ) Larcker) .906 .964 .900 .769 .933 .916 .846 .874 .949 .966 .906 .861 .941 .957 .880 .845 .938 .983 .922 .761 .936 .942 .891 .880 .961 .933 .874 .926(2) . , . , . , 95% (2 ) 1 . - 77 -

89. . , AVE . AVE AVE . AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). 4.10 4.11 . 4.10 1.000 .433 1.000 .488 .618 1.000 .470 .505 .866 1.000 .523 .546 .793 .801 1.000 .678 .391 .457 .476 .569 1.000 .673 .426 .509 .460 .602 .857 1.000 - 78 -

90. 4.11 AVE1 AVE2 .900 .769 0.187 .846 .874 .900 .769 0.238 .906 .861 .900 .769 0.221 .880 .845 .900 .769 0.274 .922 .761 .900 .769 0.460 .891 .880 .900 .769 0.453 .874 .926 .846 .874 0.382 .906 .861 .846 .874 0.255 .880 .845 .846 .874 0.298 .922 .761 .846 .874 0.153 .891 .880 .846 .874 0.181 .874 .926 .906 .861 0.750 .880 .845 .906 .861 0.629 .922 .761 .906 .861 0.209 .891 .880 .906 .861 0.259 .874 .926 - 79 -

91. .880 .845 0.642 .922 .761 .880 .845 0.227 .891 .880 .880 .845 0.212 .874 .926 .922 .761 0.324 .891 .880 .922 .761 0.362 .874 .926 .891 .880 0.734 .874 .926 .866 . .4.3 4.3.1 (AMOS) (1) (Structural Equation Model) , .(Kline, 2010). . . (CovarianceStructure Modeling) (Covariance Structure - 80 -

92. Analysis) . (Measurment Model) (Structure Model) (, 2001). . . (Tremblay & Gardner, 1996). TAM Kiosk Kiosk . Kiosk 4 . , , , 4, , , 3 . AMOS 18.0 . (Mazimum Likelihgood) . , (, 2000). . X . X , X (Brown & Cudexk, 1993). . (Absolute Fit Index) - 81 -

93. (Incremental Fit Index) (Hu & Bentler, 1995). AGF, AGFI, SRMR, RMSEA . (Baseline Model, Null Model) NNFI, NFI,CFI . GFI , 0 1 . .9 (Kline, 2010), . AGFI GFI , 0 1 . AGFI . SRMR .08 0 . RMSEA . , (Parimony-adjusted Index) (Kline, 2005). RMSEA .05 , .05 .08 , .1 (Browne & Cudeck,1993). NNFI Tucker and Lewis(1973) TLI(Tucker-Lwis Index) . NNFI , . .90 . NNFI 1 NFI. . CFI - 82 -

94. . . X . 4.12 . 4.12 X 287.037 d.f 157 NFI .942 p .000 IFI .973 X/d.f 1.828 RFI .930 SRMR .069 NNFI .967 GFI .880 CFI .973 AGFI .840 PGFI .658 PNFI .778 RMSEA .063 PCFI .804 X .000 NNFI, IFI, RFI, NNFI, CFI .90 . GFI, AGFI .90 SRMR .069 .08 RMSEA.063 . . - 83 -

95. , (M.I: Modification Index) . . . , . , . . , . , , , . . (M.I: Modification Index) 24.597 e18, e19 e20, e20 10 . . , 5 1 2 34 . 4.1, 4.13 4.14 . - 84 -

96. 4.1 4.13 - () X d.f p X/d.f SRMR GFI AGFI PGFI RMSEA 287.037 157 .000 1.828 .069 .880 .840 .658 .063 228.057 154 1.481 1.481 .032 .904 .870 .663 .048 4.14 - () NFI IFI RFI NNFI CFI PNFI PCFI .942 .973 .930 .967 .973 .778 .804 .954 .985 .943 .981 .984 .773 .798 - . - 85 -

97. , . Kiosk .(2) . (+,-) , . . 4.2 4.15 . 4.2 AMOS - 86 -

98. 4.15 Kiosk Estimate=.204,C.R.= 3.729 (-) H1-1 . Estimate=.134, C.R.=2.866, Estimate=.279, C.R.=2.565 .01 (+) H1-3, H1-4 . Kiosk (+) H1-2 .80 . 4.15 SEM () C.R.3) H1-1. *** .204 .217 .058 3.729 (-) H1-2. .134 .135 .079 1.710 (+) H1-3.(+) .342 .374 .131 2.866** H1-4. .279 .262 .099 2.656** (+) *** H2-1.(-) .285 .247 .062 3.962 H2-2.(-) .185 .247 .065 6.856*** *** H3-1.(+) .748 .855 .052 13.122 *** H4-1. (+) .501 .461 .067 6.856 *p 1.96 p < .025, |C.R.| > 1.645 p < .05 - 87 -

99. H2-1 H2-2 Estimate=.285, C.R.=3.962 Estimate=.185, C.R.=6.856 .005 . H3-1 Estimate=.748, C.R.=13.122 . Davis(1989) TAM . H4-1 , Estimate=.501,C.R.=6.856 .005 . 4.16 H1-1 . H1-2 . H1-3 . H1-4 . H2-1 . H2-2 . H3-1 . H4-1 . 4.16 . H1-2 H4-1 . - 88 -

100. 5 5.1 Kiosk , Kiosk . , . . , Kiosk (-) (+) . , (-) . , Kiosk . , (+) . , (-) (+) . - 89 -

101. 5.2 ., . . , Kiosk , Kiosk Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . . Kiosk . Kiosk Self Check-in . (Self Baggage Drop) Kiosk . (+) Kiosk . - 90 -

102. , , , . 3 . 1 , 2 , Kiosk . 3 , Kiosk Kiosk .5.3 ., Kiosk Kiosk . . , Kiosk . (Self Baggage Drop) . , . Davis - 91 -

103. . - 92 -

104. (2007), AMOS 18.0 , , , (2001) . . (2008), , , 10 9, pp.318-326 (2004), , , . (2009), " , . (2000). : . : , 237 (2003), , . (2010), : UTAUT , , 39 1, pp.55-79 (2011), - -, ., , (2008), , , 13 2, pp.23-58, (1994), , , 23 3, pp.15-54., (2005). R & D, () p325-335 (1999), " ", 14-3, pp.205-233. (2011), , . - 93 -

105. (2000), " - - . (2009), , ., , (2009), : , , 21 4( 49) pp.295-315. (2000), " ". : , 19(1), 161-177 (2001), , . Departmens of Eduacation and Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara.Ajzen, I.,(1985), "From Intentions to Action: A theory of Planned Behavior", In J. Kuhi & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, pp11-39. Hidelberg: spingerAjzen, I, Fishbein, M., (1972), "Attitudes and Nomative Beliefs as Factors Influencing Behavioral Intentions", Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 21(1), pp.1-9Ajzen, I,.(1991) "Ther Theory of Planned Behaciour", Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol.50, No 2, pp.179-211Anselmsson, J. (2001), Customer perceived service quality and technology-based Self-service, Doctoral dissertation, Lund University, Lund Business PressBandura A., (1986), "Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory", Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HallBandura, A. (1997) "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change." Psychological Review 84:191-215 - 94 -

106. Bateson. J. E.G. (1985), "Self-Service consumer: An exploratory study" Journal of Retailing, 61(3):49-76Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351-370.Bitner, M.J. (1990), "Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses", Journal of Marketing, 54 (2):69-82.Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., Tetreault, M.S. (1990), "The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents", Journal of Marketing, 54 (1): 71-84Bitner, M.J., Faranda, W.T, Hubbert, A.R., and Zeithaml V. A., (1997). "Customer Contributions and Roles in Service Delivery." International Joural of Service Industry Management. 8 (3): 193-205Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W. and Meuter, M. L. (2000), "Technology Infusion in Serice Encounters", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1):138-149Boulding, W., A. Kalra, R. Staelin & V.A. Zeithmal (1993). A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations To Behavioral Intentios. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7-27.Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R, (1989). "Altermative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Carlzon, J. (1987), Moments of Truth, Ballinger Publishing, Cambriage, MA.Carman, E. G. and Zeller, R. A.(1979), "Reliability and Validity Assessment," Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Science, Sage Publications. - 95 -

107. Chang-tseh Hsieh, (2005). "Implication SElf-Service Technology To Gain Competitive Advantages", Implementing Self-Service Technology, Commuications of the IIMA, Vol.5 Issue.1.Dabholkar, P.A.(1994a), "Technology-based service delivery: a classification scheme for Developing marketing strategies.", in Swarts, T.A., Bowen, D.E. and Brown, S.W. (Eds), Advances in Services Marketing and Management,: 3: 241-271Dabholkar, P.A. (1994b), "Incorporating Choice into an Attitudinal Framework: Analyzing Models of Menral Comparison Processes", Journal of Consumer Research, 21: June, 100-118.Dabholkar, P.A, (1996), "Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service Options: an investigation of alternative models of service quality", International Journal of Research ion Marketing. 13(1): 29-51Dabholkar, P.A. (2000), "Technology in service delivery: Implications for self-service and service support", in Swartz, T.A. and Iacobucci, D. (Eds), Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, Sage Publications, New York, NY: 103-110.Dabholkar, P.A., Bobbit, L.M., and Lee, E.J., (2003). "Understanding Consumer Motication and Behacior Related to Self-Scanning in Rtailing: Implications for Strategy and Research on Technology-Based Self-Service, "International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(1) 59-95Davis, F.D., Bagozzi R. P. and Warshaw P.R. (1989) "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models", Management Science, 35(8): 983-1003Davis, F.D., (1989), "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Use Acceptance of Information Technology." MIS Quarterly, 319-340 - 96 -

108. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P.R., (1989) "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models", Management Science, Vol.35, No.8, pp.982-1003Davis, F.D. (1993), "User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavior impacts", International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3): 475-487Dorsch, M. J., Grove, S. J., & Darden. W.R.,(200). Consumer intetntions to use a service category. Journal of Services Marketing. 14(2), 92-117.Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell & P.W. Minaird (!995). Consumer Behavior(8th). N.Y., The Dyden PressFornell, C. & D. F. Larcker(1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Error," Journal of Marketing, 55(January)Gronroos, C. (1984), " A service quality model and its marketing implications", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 19 No.4, pp. 36-44.Heo, M.W., and Hendry, J. (2002) "Self-service encounters: Conceptualizing self-service as a continuum of varying intensities", Monash University, ANZMAC conference.Hair, J.F., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., Page, M. (2007), Research Methods for Business, Chichester: Wiley.Hu, L.. Benteler, P. M. (1995), Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed), Structural quation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Jagdish N. Sheth (1981), "Psychology of Innovation Resistance: The less developed Concept(LDC) in Diffusion Research", Research in Marketing, Vol.4, pp.273-282 - 97 -

109. Johns, N. (1999), "What is this thing called service?", European Journal of Marketing, 33(9 and 10):958-974.Kelly, S.W., Connelly Jr, J.H., Skinner, S.J. (1990), "Customer participation in service production and delivery", Journal of Retailing 66(3):315-335.Kline, R, B. (2010), "Principles and practice of structural equation modeling 2nd. New Yotk: Guilford.Meckenna, R. (1991). "Marketing is Everything", Harvard Business Review, 69(1), pp65-79.Meuter, Mattew. L., (2000), Amy L., Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree & Mary Jo Bitner. (2000). "Self-SErvice Technologies: Understanding Customer Satisfaction with Technology-Based Service Encounters." Journal of Marketing. 64(July), 50-64.Moore, G. C. & Benbasat, I.,(1991), "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation", Information System Research, Vol.2, No.3, pp.192-222.Nunnally, J.C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Parasuraman, A, (2000), "Technology Readiness Indez: A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies", Journal of Service Research 2 (4): 307-334Peterson, Kristine, (1988), "Guest Relations: Substance or Fluff?", Healthcare Forum 31: 23-36Ram, S. (1987), "A Model of Innovation Resistance", Advances in Consumer Research, 14(1): 208-212.Rhoda C. Joseph, (2010), "Indivisual Resistance to IT Innovations", - 98 -

110. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 53, No.4.Rogers, E.M., (1995), "Diffusion of Innovations", 4th Edition, Free Press: New York.Saga, V.L. and Zmud, R.W., (1994) The nature and determinants of IT Acceptance, Routinization and Infusion, in Levine, Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology, Amsterdam, Elevier Science BVSalar Habibi, (2008), "Intention to Adopt Technology-Based Self-Service", Lulea University of Technology, Master ThesisShocktack, G.L. (1985), "Plaaning the service Encounter". The Service Encounter, John A. Azepiel, Michael R. Solomon, and Carol F. Surprenant, eds. Lexington, MA: Lezington Books:243-254Silvestro. R., Johnston, T., Fitzgerald, L. , Voss, C. (1990), "Quality measurement in SErvice industrues". International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol.1, No.2.Taylor, S. & Todd, P.,(1995) "Assessing IT Usage: the Role of Prior Experience", MIS Quarterly, vol.19, No. 4, pp.561-570Talolr, S. & Todd, P., "Understanding Information Technology Usae: A Test of Competing Models", Information Systems Research. Vol.6, No.2, pp.144-176, 1995bThompson, R., Higgins, C., & Howell, J., (1991), "Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization", MIS Quarterly, Vol.15, No.1, pp.125-143Tremblay, P. F., Gardner, R. C., (1996), "On the growth of structural equation modeling in psychological journals, Structural Equation modeling: - 99 -

111. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(2), 93-104.Venkatesh, Y,. Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), "User Acceptance of Information Technology: toward a Unified View," MIS Quarterly, Vol.27, No3, pp.425-278Wang, J and Namen, J. (2004) "Customer Adoption of Technology-Based Self-Service: A Case Study on Airport Self Check-in Service", Master of Science thesis, Lulea University of TechnologyWalker, R. H., Craig-Lees, M. (2000), "Technology-enabled service delivery: at risk of compromising the customer-service provider connection?", Advances in International Marketing, 305-322.Walker, T. H., Craig-Lees, M., Hecker, R., Francis, H. (2002), "Technology-Enabled Service Delivery: An Inestigation of Reasons Affecting Customer Adoption and Rejection", International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(1): 91-106Zeithml, Valarie, A., (1988). "Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality & Value A Means End Model and Synthesis of Evidence." Journal of Marketing. 52(July), 2-22. - 100 -

112. ? . KIOSK . , . , . . 8 , . : : (: 010-7223-4111, [email protected]) - 101 -

113. Kiosk() (Self- Check-in) . Kiosk , , . - (Self Check-in Kiosk) .. .1. ? 2. ? ( )1 2-5 6-9 10 3. 1 ? 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 4. Kiosk ? 5. ?1-3 4-6 7-9 10 6. Kiosk ?1-3 4-6 7-9 10 - 102 -

114. 7. Kiosk ? () (: -) (: -) (: -) (: -)8. Kiosk ? () ATM , , ( ) - 103 -

115. . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . kiosk , , . Kiosk . kiosk . kiosk ( , ) . kiosk . kiosk . kiosk . - 104 -

116. Kiosk . . Kiosk ( , , ) . Kiosk . Kiosk . - 105 -

117. . Kiosk . Kiosk Kiosk . Kiosk , . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . Kiosk . - 106 -

118. . .1. ? 2. ?20 21 - 30 31 4041 50 51 60 61 3. ?100 101 - 200 201 - 300301 - 400 401 - 500 500 4. ?() ()() ()5. ? ( ) - 107 -

119. ABSTRACT A Study on Attributes affecting the Use of Kiosk at the Airport Chung, Min Joo Dept. of Business Administration Graduate School of Korea Aerospace University (Advisor : Prof. Park, Jin-Woo Ph.D.) The purpose of this study is to identify the attributes affecting the passengerintention towards using Self Check-in Kiosk at the airport. The researchmodel is designed based on Innovation Resistance and significant effectsbetween the variables. I have developed a theoretical model which integratesthe influence of Resistance Model and Technology Acceptance Model(TAM).The hypotheses were tested on a sample of 228 air travellers at InCheonInternational Airport and Jeju International Airport in Korea. The researchshows 4 points of result. First, Relative Advantage effects on both InnovationResistance and Attitude, but influenced positively and directly with Attitudethan Innovation Resistance. Secondly, Complexity and Perceived Anxiety alsoeffect positively on Innovation Resistance. Thirdly, Innovation Resistanceinfluenced negative significant effects on Attitude and Behavioral Intention. At - 108 -

120. the last, I found out new significant hypothesis which is Relative Advantageseffects on Attitude through M.I(Modification Index). The Purpose of thispaper is to find out significant variables that hinder the User intentiontowards use of Kiosk at the airport and to understand individuals cognitivestructure with Innovation Resistance. - 109 -

정민주(2012)항공사 kiosk 사용의도에 영향을 미치는 변수에 관한연구

Documents

exploratory

confirmatory

enabled service

service industry

technology

innovation

modification

service delivery