To serve and protect: a typology of service robots and their role in physically safe services

Abstract

PurposeAlthough consumers feel that the move toward service robots in the frontline so far was driven by firms' strive to replace human service agents and realize cost savings accordingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has led customers to appreciate frontline robots' ability to provide services in ways that keep them safe and protected from the virus. Still, research on this topic is scant. This article offers guidance by providing a theoretical backdrop for the safety perspective on service robots, as well as outlining a typology that researchers and practitioners can use to further advance this field.Design/methodology/approachA typology is developed based on a combination of a theory- and practice-driven approach. Departing from the type of behavior performed by the service robot, the typology synthesizes three different service robot roles from past literature and proposes three new safety-related role extensions. These safety-related roles are derived from a search for examples of how service robots are used in practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.FindingsThe typology's roles are corroborated by discussing relevant robot implementations around the globe. Jointly, the six roles give rise to several ideas that jointly constitute a future research agenda.Originality/valueThis manuscript is (one of) the first to provide in-depth attention to the phenomenon of service customers' physical safety needs in the age of service robots. In doing so, it discusses and ties together theories and concepts from different fields, such as hierarchy of needs theory, evolutionary human motives theory, perceived risk theory, regulatory focus theory, job demand–resources theory, and theory of artificial intelligence job replacement.

Reducing deviant consumer behaviour with service robot guardians

“…Third, we answer the call for additional research into service frontlines high in automated social presence using embodied humanoid service robots (van Doorn et al, 2017). Such social robots embrace appropriate norms of behaviour for their role (van Doorn et al, 2017) (Schepers and Streukens, 2022). Our research finds humanoid service robots do have capacity to encourage obedience, through capable guardianship, but not with the same effectiveness as a human.…”

“…First, we present the first study to directly examine the unintended consequences associated with the emergence of service robots by investigating how customer propensity for deviant consumer behaviour is influenced by robot humanness. In doing so, we answer a call for research into whether a humanised service robot offers a perceived social presence that encourages obedience, as called for by Schepers and Streukens (2022). Second, we uncover the psychological mechanisms that help explain the relationship between perceived humanness and deviant consumer behaviour intentions (i.e.…”

Can robots recover a service using interactional justice as employees do? A literature review-based assessment

“…Service research examines ServBots' implementation in various service settings (see Table 1 ). ServBots interact with customers to share information (Schepers and Streukens 2022 ), book services (Pillai and Sivathanu 2020 ), facilitate the check-in process at a hotel (Fan et al 2020 ), and handle functional operations such as carrying luggage (Christou et al 2020 ) and bringing food to a table (Tuomi et al 2021 ). ServBots also have social skills to engage in entertaining interactions with customers by demonstrating empathy (Pozharliev et al 2021 ), interest (Choi et al 2020 ), assurance, and reliability (Chiang and Trimi 2020 ).…”

Experiential AR/VR: a consumer and service framework and research agenda

“…, 2020), aims at delivering better experiences by enhancing the actual products and service (Saarikko et al. , 2017), robots, described as autonomous and adaptable interfaces that interact with and deliver service to consumers (Schepers and Streukens, 2022), aim at delivering better experiences by enhancing our interactions (Pitardi et al. , 2022), AR and VR have a direct impact on how people construe and experience consumption and build their sense of self through it (Wedel et al.…”

“…If IoT, defined as an ecosystem whereby a number of digitally embedded devices (e.g. "things") communicate through the Internet (Sharma et al, 2020), aims at delivering better experiences by enhancing the actual products and service (Saarikko et al, 2017), robots, described as autonomous and adaptable interfaces that interact with and deliver service to consumers (Schepers and Streukens, 2022), aim at delivering better experiences by enhancing our interactions (Pitardi et al, 2022), AR and VR have a direct impact on how people construe and experience consumption and build their sense of self through it (Wedel et al, 2020). In contrast, AI can be considered more as the software engine behind many services (Martinez, 2019); consumers experience AI through devices and interfaces, rather than AI itself (Flavi an et al, 2022).…”