Robot service failure: the double-edged sword effect of emotional labor in service recovery

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to discuss the effect of frontline employees' emotional labor (surface acting vs. deep acting) on customer satisfaction and the moderating role of responsibility attributions in the situation of robot service failure.Design/methodology/approachThe scenario-based experimental method was designed to perform hypothesis testing and SPSS was used to analyze the data from the 363 questionnaires collected.FindingsThe results indicate that (1) employees' emotional labor recovery has a double-edged sword effect. Deep acting improves customer satisfaction, while surface acting undermines the effectiveness of service recovery and leaves customer satisfaction below previous levels. (2) Customers' responsibility attributions for service failure moderate the effect of service recovery.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to focus on the role of frontline employees' emotional labor in robot service failure contexts, which not only enriches and expands the relevant literature in this domain, but also deepens the understanding of how emotional labor and responsibility attribution effect the customer satisfaction.

When frontline robots emerge: the double-edged-sword effect of anticipated trust on intention to switch brands after service failure

“…First, based on two typical service venues, hotels and restaurants, this study explores the changing characteristics of the impact of levels of consumer anticipated trust on service failure tolerance. Second, although there is a burgeoning body of research on robot service failure (Akarsu et al, 2023), this study simultaneously considers service provider types and clarifies the complex relationship Anticipated trust and tolerance between anticipated trust and service failure tolerance across service provider types (Shi et al, 2023). Third, after substantiating our basic effect, we uncover the important aspects that drive the consumer-brand switching process.…”

“…Second, although there is a burgeoning body of research on robot service failure (Akarsu et al. , 2023), this study simultaneously considers service provider types and clarifies the complex relationship between anticipated trust and service failure tolerance across service provider types (Shi et al. , 2023).…”

Robot service failure and recovery: Literature review and future directions

“…Similar findings could be seen in Fan et al’s study, 33 in which anthropomorphism increase users’ perceptions of the robot’s social role, thus making users more dissatisfied with the service failures caused by the robot. Other studies have comprehensively examined the overall user responses to robot service failures, including higher levels of negative word-of-mouth, 16,39,43 (dis)satisfaction, 34,39,69 forgiveness, 34,35,38 and switch intentions for robots 16 as well as lower level of engagement, 39 loyalty, 53,55 and positive response. 40 Furthermore, there exists a contention positing that robotic services are created utilizing an individual’s past behaviors, rendering them akin to a digital avatar crafted for said individual, fostering a greater self-AI association between the user and the robot compared to human staff service contexts.…”

Customer intention to participate in service recovery: what is it and what are the drivers?

“…A growing body of research has started exploring the role of customers in recovering from such failures (e.g. Dong et al ., 2008; Mahapatra and Mishra, 2021; Shi et al ., 2022). Their emphasis is on value co-creation (Lusch and Vargo, 2006) where the customer contributes along with the service provider in the service recovery (Dong et al ., 2008).…”

“…The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/ 2055-6225.htm On the contrary, some existing studies find that customer participation (CP) in service recovery may lead to negative consequences for the firms, like eroded brand loyalty, lower satisfaction and repurchase intentions (e.g. Adil et al, 2022;Roggeveen et al, 2012;Shi et al, 2022;Xu et al, 2014). Such outcomes exist as the customers of co-created service recovery may want more customised output shaped through higher expectations (Heidenreich et al, 2015).…”