EXPLORING KEY DRIVERS OF FRONTLINE SERVICE ROBOT ACCEPTANCE IN THAI RETAIL SERVICE CONTEXT: A QUALITATIVE STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60101/rmuttgber.2024.276415Keywords:
Frontline Service Robots, Retail Service, Customer Acceptance, Qualitative StudyAbstract
This qualitative study explores the factors associated to the acceptance of frontline service robots (FSRs) in the context of retail services in Thailand. In-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of 30 participants who had direct experience with FSRs. The data was analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings revealed five key elements associated with the acceptance of FSRs: individual heterogeneity factors, functional elements, social-emotional elements, psychological comfort elements, and value elements.
The research findings revealed five key elements associated with the acceptance of FSR: 1) Individual heterogeneity factors, which refers to the perception of an individual's technological capability; 2) Functional elements, which includes the efficiency of service delivery and command reception of the FSR; 3) Social-emotional elements, which involves the facial expressions and tone of voice of the FSR; 4) Psychological comfort elements, which positive feelings of mental ease and reliability; and 5) Value elements, which pertains to the perceived value in the service delivery provided by the FSR. The study indicated that individuals who chose to interact with FSRs exhibited high self-efficacy, low technology anxiety, and a high level of customer innovativeness. Additionally, it was found that functional attributes, such as providing quick and accurate services, along with social and emotional aspects, including facial expressions and polite manners, were related to perceived utilitarian value, hedonic value, and psychological comfort, all of which associated the acceptance of FSRs.
References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Rinehart & Winston.
Andreassen, T. W., van Oest, R. D., & Lervik-Olsen, L. (2018). Customer inconvenience and price compensation: A multiperiod approach to labor-automation trade-offs in services. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 173-183.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656.
Bhimasta, R. A., & Kuo, P.-Y. (2019). What causes the adoption failure of service robots? A case of Henn-na Hotel in Japan. In Adjunct proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 1107-1112). ACM.
Blau, P. (1968). Interaction: Social exchange. In The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (pp. 452-458). Free Press and Macmillan.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Breazeal, C. (2004). Social interactions in HRI: The robot view. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 34(2), 181-186.
Chi, O. H., Gursoy, D., & Chi, C. G. (2022). Tourists’ Attitudes toward the Use of Artificially Intelligent (AI) devices in tourism service delivery: Moderating role of service value seeking. Journal of Travel Research, 61(1), 170-185.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human Relations, 53(2), 275-294.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Explaining internet banking behavior: Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, or technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(4), 719-734.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.
Gartner. (2020). 2 Megatrends Dominate the Gartner Hype Cycle for Artificial Intelligence, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com.au/en/articles/2-megatrends-dominate-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-artificial-intelligence-2020
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction. Routledge.
Grewal, D., Motyka, S., & Levy, M. (2018). The evolution and future of retailing and retailing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(1), 85-93.
Gursoy, D., Chi, O. H., Lu, L., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 157-169.
Heerink, M. (2011, March). Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction (pp. 147-148).
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361-375.
Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 155-172.
Keeley, B. L. (2004). Anthropomorphism, primatomorphism, mammalomorphism: Understanding cross-species comparisons. Biology and Philosophy, 19(4), 521-540.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
Kim, H.-Y., & McGill, A. L. (2018). Minions for the rich? Financial status changes how consumers see products with anthropomorphic features. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(2), 429-450.
Lee, B., & Cranage, D. A. (2018). Causal attributions and overall blame of self-service technology (SST) failure: Different from service failures by employee and policy. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(1), 61-84.
Li, G., Zhang, R., & Wang, C. (2015). The role of product originality, usefulness and motivated consumer innovativeness in new product adoption intentions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(2), 214-223.
Lin, I. Y., & Mattila, A. (2021). The value of service robots from the hotel guest’s perspective: A mixed-method approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94(2). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102876
Lloyd, A. E., & Luk, S. T. (2011). Interaction behaviors leading to comfort in the service encounter. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(3), 176-189.
Lu, L., Cai, R., & Gursoy, D. (2019). Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80(1), 36-51.
Maneewarn, T. (2014, March). Survey of social robots in Thailand. In 2014 International Electrical Engineering Congress (iEECON) (pp. 1-4).
IEEE. Molnar, L. J., Ryan, L. H., Pradhan, A. K., Eby, D. W., Louis, R. M. S., & Zakrajsek, J. S. (2018). Understanding trust and acceptance of automated vehicles: An exploratory simulator study of transfer of control between automated and manual driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 319-328.
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98-100.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
Qiu, H., Li, M., Shu, B., & Bai, B. (2020). Enhancing hospitality experience with service robots: The mediating role of rapport building. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(3), 247-268.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage publications.
Said, N., Ben Mansour, K., Bahri-Ammari, N., Yousaf, A., & Mishra, A. (2024). Customer acceptance of humanoid service robots in hotels: Moderating effects of service voluntariness and culture. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 36(6). http://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2022-1523
Savela, N., Turja, T., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10, 493-502.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & management, 44(1), 90-103.
Seyitoğlu, F., & Ivanov, S. (2020). A conceptual framework of the service delivery system design for hospitality firms in the (post-) viral world: The role of service robots. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102661
Simmons, R. G. (2001). Comfort with the self. Extending self-esteem theory and research: Sociological and psychological currents, 198-222.
Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., & Gutman, E. G. (1985). A role theory perspective on dyadic interactions: The service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 99-111.
Spake, D. F., Beatty, S. E., Brockman, B. K., & Crutchfield, T. N. (2003). Consumer comfort in service relationships: Measurement and importance. Journal of Service Research, 5(4), 316-332.
Van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S. M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A. L., Grewal, D., & Petersen, J. A. (2017). Domo arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social presence in organizational frontlines and customers’ service experiences. Journal of Service Research, 20(1), 43-58.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 36(1), 157-178.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage publications.
Whelan, S., Murphy, K., Barrett, E., Krusche, C., Santorelli, A., & Casey, D. (2018). Factors affecting the acceptability of social robots by older adults including people with dementia or cognitive impairment: A literature review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(5), 643-668.
Wirtz, J., Patterson, P. G., Kunz, W. H., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S., & Martins, A. (2018). Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907-931.
Xiao, L., & Kumar, V. (2021). Robotics for customer service: A useful complement or an ultimate substitute?. Journal of Service Research, 24(1), 9-29.
Zhang, Y., Weng, Q., & Zhu, N. (2018). The relationships between electronic banking adoption and its antecedents: A meta-analytic study of the role of national culture. International Journal of Information Management, 40, 76-87.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Adisorn Chaysang, Chirawan Chaisuwan, Narumon Kimpakorn
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์เป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของผู้นิพนธ์
ข้อความที่ปรากฏในบทความแต่ละเรื่องในวารสารวิชาการเล่มนี้เป็นความคิดเห็นส่วนตัวของผู้เขียนแต่ละท่านไม่เกี่ยวข้องกับมหาวิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีราชมงคลธัญบุรี และคณาจารย์ท่านอื่นๆในมหาวิทยาลัยฯ แต่อย่างใด ความรับผิดชอบองค์ประกอบทั้งหมดของบทความแต่ละเรื่องเป็นของผู้เขียนแต่ละท่าน หากมีความผิดพลาดใดๆ ผู้เขียนแต่ละท่านจะรับผิดชอบบทความของตนเองแต่ผู้เดียว
