How can consumers be more accepting, satisfied of and compliant with service robots in frontline service settings, such as retail and even healthcare? This is the question Jana Holthöwer focused on in her PhD research. A relevant topic in this day and age of staff shortages. Holthöwer stresses that it is important to understand how robot characteristics and contextual factors can influence the service experience to be able to ensure a successful integration of service robots the health realm. This is at the core of her research and dissertation. With her work, she enriches our understanding of the integration of service robots in the healthcare sector.

During the last years, the rise of service robots in organizational frontlines has accelerated. Many service industries are increasingly facing staff shortages, leading to searching for alternative sources of labor, such as service robots.[i] In service industries, robot receptionists, robot delivery, and robot concierge assistants are already replacing, or augmenting human-human frontline services.[ii] It has been forecasted that although robotics first found its way in industrial manufacturing, its greatest potential lies in customer service.[iii]

Owing to challenges associated with aging populations and an ever-increasing shortage of personnel, one sector that has invested heavily in robots and other technological solutions is healthcare. Holthöwer: “Robots, among other forms of technology, are seen as an important tool to alleviate these acute staff shortages and thus their integration presents significant potential. However, our understanding and research on service robots in frontline service settings dramatically lags behind these staggering developments. Hence, more research is needed on the limited but growing body of work investigating these technological entities to better understand their potential benefits, challenges, and optimal implementation.”

Resistance to robots

While delving into the existing literature on consumer interaction with service robots, Holthöwer noticed that many researchers documented a resistance to robots, noting that consumers often react negatively to an organization’s introduction of automated entities. For instance, engaging in social interactions with robots can evoke negative feelings and skepticism, sometimes even prompting compensatory consumption.[iv] This often leads to heightened stress and discomfort compared to interactions with human employees. Moreover, consumers frequently resist compliance with robots' requests[v] or disregard their advice, trivializing robots[vi] and perceiving them as lacking the capacity to understand human goals and desires[vii].

Despite the increasing use of service robots across various frontline settings, a major challenge remains: the acceptance of these technologies. Holthöwer: “This is particularly concerning in light of global healthcare challenges such as demographic shifts, rising quality demands, and resource constraints. Given the potential of service robots to address these challenges, there is a pressing need to enhance the service experience when integrating these technologies. I find this topic particularly compelling for research, as it provides an opportunity to shift the narrative from viewing service robots as problems to recognizing their promise as viable solutions. I love working with robots and observing real human-robot interactions.”

Preference for less human-like robots

Holthöwer’s dissertation comprehensively explores various factors that enhance interactions with service robots. She found that service experiences with robots can be enhanced by tailoring their characteristics, such as reducing autonomy and human-likeness, and by deploying them in specific situations, such as delivering negative feedback or handling embarrassing services. In this latter context, it is important to avoid robots that appear overly lifelike and judgmental.

Together with her colleagues, Holthöwer uncovered interesting details. “In this age of autonomy, the ‘holy grail’ of robotics is often seen as making robots as human-like as possible. However, we actually find that consumers don't necessarily prefer this, as they feel less judged when interacting with robots that are less human-like. In addition, in light of the challenges associated with consumers’ reluctance to comply with robots’ recommendations, service providers should reduce their robots’ perceived autonomy. We find that consumers are more compliant when robot advice is given on behalf of a human coworker, rather than autonomously by a robot. It seems that the validation by the human makes the advice more credible which ultimately results in higher compliance with the advice.”

In another project Holthöwer and colleagues find that consumers are more affected by human feedback than by feedback from a robot, both for better and for worse. This has important implications for transformative services, where giving feedback is a substantial part of the service delivery. “Specifically, negative feedback from a robot has a weaker detrimental effect on satisfaction with the service provider, so organizations might institute service robots specifically to provide this type of feedback, criticisms, or reprimands. However, managers should assign human employees to give positive feedback because robots cannot give the same boost as much as human service employees do,” Holthöwer explains.

Another interesting finding happened during a lab study involving human-robot interaction. Holthöwer and her colleagues gave students the option to be served by either a human or a service robot. They hypothesized that in situations where there might be embarrassment or fear of judgment, consumers would prefer the robot—and this was indeed what they found. “However, this preference wasn’t the case in non-embarrassing situations. Contrary to what one might expect—such as students choosing robots out of novelty, curiosity, or to avoid social interaction—human service employees were still much more preferred under ‘normal’ circumstances.”

More information

Jana Holthöwer will defend her PhD thesis titled ‘Robots to the rescue? Shaping service experiences in healthcare and beyond' on Thursday 10 October.

References

 [i] Becker, M., Efendić, E., & Odekerken-Schröder, G. (2022). Emotional communication by service robots: a research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 33(4/5), 675–687. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-10-2021-0403

[ii] De Keyser, A., Köcher, S., Alkire, L., Verbeeck, C., & Kandampully, J. (2019). Frontline Service Technology infusion: conceptual archetypes and future research directions. Journal of Service Management, 30(1), 156–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-03-2018-0082

Jiang, Y., & Wen, J. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: a perspective article. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(8), 2563–2573. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-03-2020-0237

[iii] Chui, M., Manyika, J., & Miremadi, M. (2016, July 8). Where machines could replace humans—and where they can’t (yet). McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/where-machines-could-replace-humans-and-where-they-cant-yet

[iv] Mende, M., Scott, M. L., Van Doorn, J., Grewal, D., & Shanks, I. (2019). Service Robots Rising: How humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718822827

[v] Haring, K. S., Mosley, A., Pruznick, S., Fleming, J., Satterfield, K., De Visser, E. J., Tossell, C. C., & Funke, G. (2019). Robot Authority in Human-Machine Teams: Effects of Human-Like Appearance on Compliance. In Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 63–78). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21565-1_5

[vi] Schneider, S., Liu, Y., Tomita, K., & Kanda, T. (2022). Stop Ignoring Me! on fighting the trivialization of social robots in public spaces. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 11(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3488241

[vii] Kim, T. W., & Duhachek, A. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Persuasion: A Construal-Level account. Psychological Science, 31(4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620904985