酒店服务机器人拟人化对顾客服务失败容忍度的影响：任务类型的调节作用

doi:10.12054/lydk.bisu.278

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

近年来，越来越多的酒店开始引入拟人化机器人开展服务，但不可避免地会有服务失败的情况发生。目前鲜有研究探讨酒店服务机器人在服务失败情境下的拟人化对顾客的影响。据此，本研究基于心灵感知理论和任务-技术匹配理论，构建机器人拟人化与顾客服务失败容忍度之间关系的理论模型。研究发现，顾客对机器人服务失败的容忍度随机器人拟人化程度的提高而降低，机器人拟人化会增强顾客的绩效预期（移情性），从而降低（增加）顾客对服务失败的容忍度。此外，任务类型对机器人拟人化与顾客服务失败容忍度、绩效期望与移情性的关系起调节作用。具体而言，与高拟人化机器人执行机械型任务（或低拟人化机器人执行情感社交型任务）发生服务失败相比，当高拟人化机器人执行情感社交型任务（或低拟人化机器人执行机械型任务）发生服务失败时，顾客的绩效期望较高，而对服务失败的容忍度和移情性较低。本研究揭示了机器人拟人化对顾客服务失败容忍度发生作用的两种新的中介路径（绩效期望和移情性），拓展了心灵感知理论和任务-技术匹配理论的应用场景。

关键词: 服务机器人; 服务失败; 拟人化; 任务类型; 顾客容忍度

Abstract:

In recent years, an increasing number of hotels have introduced anthropomorphic robots to enhance customer service. However, service failures inevitably occur. Despite this, limited research has examined the impact of robot anthropomorphism on customer responses in the context of service failures within hotels. This study, grounded in mind perception theory and the Task-Technology Fit Theory, develops a theoretical model exploring the relationship between robot anthropomorphism and customer tolerance for service failures. Results reveal that customer tolerance for robot service failures decreases as the level of robot anthropomorphism increases. Anthropomorphism heightens customers’performance expectations (or empathy), which in turn reduces (or increases) tolerance for service failures. Furthermore, task type moderates the relationships between robot anthropomorphism and customer tolerance for service failures, performance expectations, and empathy. Specifically, when high-anthropomorphism robots fail at performing social-emotional tasks (or low-anthropomorphism robots fail at mechanical tasks), customers exhibit lower tolerance and empathy and have higher performance expectations. This research uncovers two novel mediation paths (performance expectations and empathy) by which robot anthropomorphism affects customer tolerance for service failures, expanding the applications of mind perception theory and task-technology fit theory.

Keywords: service robot; service failure; anthropomorphism; task type; customer tolerance

中图分类号:

林美珍, 杨兴鑫, 王彦文, 李月. 酒店服务机器人拟人化对顾客服务失败容忍度的影响：任务类型的调节作用[J]. 旅游导刊, 2024, 8(6): 28-55.

LIN Meizhen, YANG Xingxin, WANG Yanwen, LI Yue. The Influence of Hotel Service Robot Anthropomorphism on Customer Tolerance for Service Failures: The Moderating Role of Task Type[J]. Tourism and Hospitality Prospects, 2024, 8(6): 28-55.

图/表 12

图1 研究模型

Fig. 1 Research model

图2 机器人拟人化刺激材料

Fig. 2 Robot anthropomorphism stimulus materials

图3 拟人化水平对服务失败容忍度的影响

Fig. 3 Impact of anthropomorphism level on tolerance of service failures

表1 顾客绩效期望与移情性中介效应检验结果

Tab. 1 Testing of mediating effects of customer performance expectancy and empathy

测试结果 Test result	效应值Effect	标准误差SE	置信区间 Percentile 95% CI		相对占比 Relative proportion
测试结果 Test result	效应值Effect	标准误差SE	下限 Lower	上限 Upper	相对占比 Relative proportion
直接效应 Direct effect	1.40	0.36	0.70	2.10	0.37
中介效应 Mediating effect	2.43	0.39	1.66	3.20	0.63
绩效期望中介效应 Mediating effect of performance expectancy	3.02	0.25	2.50	3.49	0.79
移情性中介效应 Mediating effect of empathy	-0.59	0.18	-0.94	-0.21	-0.15
总效应 Total effect	3.83	0.11	3.61	4.06

图4 拟人化水平对服务失败容忍度的影响

Fig. 4 Influence of anthropomorphism on customer tolerance for service failure

表2 不同条件下模型的效应量

Tab. 2 The effect magnitude of the model under different conditions

测试结果 Test result	分组 Group	效应值 Effect	标准误 SE	置信区间 Percentile 95% CI
测试结果 Test result	分组 Group	效应值 Effect	标准误 SE	下限 Lower	上限 Upper
直接效应 Direct effect	Y：服务失败容忍度
	机械型任务	1.78	0.22	1.35	2.21
	情感社交型任务	2.33	0.34	1.66	3.00
间接效应 Indirect effect	M_绩效期望
	机械型任务	1.52	0.32	0.95	2.21
	情感社交型任务	2.85	0.57	1.18	4.06
	M_移情性
	机械型任务	-0.47	0.12	-0.74	-0.25
	情感社交型任务	-0.31	0.09	-0.50	-0.15

表3 机器人拟人化与任务类型对顾客对服务失败容忍度的方差分析

Tab. 3 Analysis of variance between anthropomorphism of robots and task type on customer tolerance of service failure

变量 Variable	服务失败容忍度 Tolerance for service failure
变量 Variable	df	均方	F	p
机器人拟人化 Robot anthropomorphism	1	627.00	2 435.48	0.00
任务类型 Task type	1	0.08	0.29	0.59
机器人拟人化×任务类型 Robot anthropomorphism×Task type	1	42.42	164.76	0.00

图5 任务类型与机器人拟人化的交互对服务失败容忍度的影响

Fig. 5 Influence of the interaction between task type and anthropomorphism on customer tolerance for service failure

表4 机器人拟人化与任务类型对顾客绩效期望的方差分析

Tab. 4 Analysis of variance between anthropomorphism of robots and task type on performance expectancy

变量 Variable	绩效期望 Performance expectancy
变量 Variable	df	均方	F	p
机器人拟人化 Robot anthropomorphism	1	615.98	2605.57	0.00
任务类型 Task type	1	0.55	2.31	0.13
机器人拟人化×任务类型 Robot anthropomorphism×Task type	1	52.56	222.33	0.00

图6 任务类型与机器人拟人化的交互对绩效期望的影响

Fig. 6 Influence of the interaction between task type and anthropomorphism on performance expectancy

表5 机器人拟人化与任务类型对顾客移情性的方差分析

Tab. 5 Analysis of variance between anthropomorphism of robots and task type on empathy

变量 Variable	绩效期望 Empathy
变量 Variable	df	均方	F	p
机器人拟人化 Robot anthropomorphism	1	347.59	299.20	0.00
任务类型 Task type	1	9.82	8.45	0.00
机器人拟人化×任务类型 Robot anthropomorphism×Task type	1	11.51	9.91	0.00

图7 任务类型与机器人拟人化的交互对移情性的影响

Fig. 7 Influence of the interaction between task type and anthropomorphism on empathy

参考文献 58

[1]	Abelsen S N, Vatne S H, Mikalef P, et al. Digital working during the COVID-19 pandemic: How task-technology fit improves work performance and lessens feelings of loneliness[J]. Information Technology & People, 2023, 36(5): 2063-2087.
[2]	Adam M, Wessel M, Benlian A. AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance[J]. Electronic Markets, 2021, 31(2): 427-445.
[3]	Aggarwal P, McGill A L. When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2012, 39(2): 307-323.
[4]	Ammenwerth E, Iller C, Mahler C. IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: A fit framework and a case study[J]. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2006, 6(1): 3.
[5]	Bartneck C, Kanda T, Mubin O, et al. Does the design of a robot influence its animacy and perceived intelligence?[J]. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2009, 1(2): 195-204.
[6]	Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, et al. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots[J]. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2009, 1(1): 71-81.
[7]	Bast D F, Barnes-Holmes D. Developing the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a measure of self-forgiveness related to failing and succeeding behaviors[J]. The Psychological Record, 2015, 65(1): 189-201.
[8]	Belanche D, Casaló L V, Flavián C, et al. Service robot implementation: A theoretical framework and research agenda[J]. The Service Industries Journal, 2020, 40(3-4): 203-225.
[9]	Brown R P. Measuring individual differences in the tendency to forgive: Construct validity and links with depression[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2003, 29(6): 759-771.
[10]	Canning C, Donahue T J, Scheutz M. Investigating human perceptions of robot capabilities in remote human-robot team tasks based on first-person robot video feeds[C]// 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Chicago: IEEE, 2014: 4354-4361.
[11]	Castelo N, Bos M W, Lehmann D R. Task-dependent algorithm aversion[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2019, 56(5): 809-825.
[12]	Choi S, Mattila A S, Bolton L E. To err is human(-oid): How do consumers react to robot service failure and recovery?[J]. Journal of Service Research, 2021, 24(3): 354-371.
[13]	De Matos C A, Rossi C A V, Veiga R T, et al. Consumer reaction to service failure and recovery: The moderating role of attitude toward complaining[J]. Journal of Services Marketing, 2009, 23(7): 462-475.
[14]	Fan A L, Wu L R, Miao L, et al. When does technology anthropomorphism help alleviate customer dissatisfaction after a service failure? The moderating role of consumer technology self-efficacy and interdependent self-construal[J]. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 2020, 29(3): 269-290.
[15]	Ferrari F, Paladino M P, Jetten J. Blurring human-machine distinctions: Anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness[J]. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2016, 8(2): 287-302.
[16]	Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A. Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation[C]// The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Millbrae, CA, USA: IEEE, 2003: 55-60.
[17]	Goodhue D L, Thompson R L. Task-technology fit and individual performance[J]. MIS Quarterly, 1995, 19(2): 213-236.
[18]	Gray H M, Gray K, Wegner D M. Dimensions of mind perception[J]. Science, 2007, 315(5812): 619.
[19]	Gray K, Wegner D M. Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley[J]. Cognition, 2012, 125(1): 125-130.
[20]	Gursoy D, Chi O H, Lu L, et al. Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2019, 49(5): 157-169.
[21]	Haslam N, Bain P, Douge L, et al. More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2005, 89(6): 937-950.
[22]	He H W, Harris L. Moral disengagement of hotel guest negative WOM: Moral identity centrality, moral awareness, and anger[J]. Annals of Tourism Research, 2014, 45: 132-151.
[23]	Ho T H, Tojib D, Tsarenko Y. Human staff vs. service robot vs. fellow customer: Does it matter who helps your customer following a service failure incident?[J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2020, 87: 102501.
[24]	Hollebeek L D, Sprott D E, Brady M K. Rise of the machines? Customer engagement in automated service interactions[J]. Journal of Service Research, 2021, 24(1): 3-8.
[25]	Ivanov S H, Webster C. Designing robot-friendly hospitality facilities[C]// Proceedings of the Scientific Conference Tourism Innovations Strategies. Bourgas, Bulgaria: College of Tourism, 2017: 74-81.
[26]	Jörling M, Böhm R, Paluch S. Service robots: Drivers of perceived responsibility for service outcomes[J]. Journal of Service Research, 2019, 22(4): 404-420.
[27]	Kim H Y, McGill A L. Minions for the rich? Financial status changes how consumers see products with anthropomorphic features[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2018, 45(2): 429-450.
[28]	Lee W J, Kwag S I, Ko Y D. Optimal capacity and operation design of a robot logistics system for the hotel industry[J]. Tourism Management, 2020, 76: 103971.
[29]	Leo X, Huh Y E. Who gets the blame for service failures? Attribution of responsibility toward robot versus human service providers and service firms[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020, 113(4): 106520.
[30]	Lin M Z, Cui X T, Wang J Q, et al. Promotors or inhibitors? Role of task type on the effect of humanoid service robots on consumers’use intention[J]. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 2022, 31(6): 710-729.
[31]	Lu L, Zhang P, Zhang T T. Leveraging “human-likeness” of robotic service at restaurants[J]. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2021, 94: 102823.
[32]	Lv X Y, Liu Y, Luo J J, et al. Does a cute artificial intelligence assistant soften the blow? The impact of cuteness on customer tolerance of assistant service failure[J]. Annals of Tourism Research, 2021, 87(2): 103114.
[33]	McCartney G, McCartney A. Rise of the machines: Towards a conceptual service-robot research framework for the hospitality and tourism industry[J]. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 2020, 32(12): 3835-3851.
[34]	McCullough M E, Rachal K C, Sandage S J, et al. Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: Ⅱ. theoretical elaboration and measurement[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998, 75(6): 1586-1603.
[35]	Mende M, Scott M L, van Doorn J, et al. Service robots rising: How humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory consumer responses[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2019, 56(4): 535-556.
[36]	Moon Y. Don’t blame the computer: When self-disclosure moderates the self-serving bias[J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2003, 13(1-2): 125-137.
[37]	Mori M. The uncanny valley[J]. Energy, 1970, 7(4): 33-35.
[38]	Mori M, MacDorman K F, Kageki N. The uncanny valley [from the field][J]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 2012, 19(2): 98-100.
[39]	Nass C, Fogg B J, Moon Y. Can computers be teammates?[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1996, 45(6): 669-678.
[40]	Newton J D, Wong J, Casidy R. Deck the halls with boughs of holly to soften evaluations of service failure[J]. Journal of Service Research, 2018, 21(4): 389-404.
[41]	Phillips E, Zhao X, Ullman D, et al. What is human-like?: Decomposing robots’ human-like appearance using the anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) database[C]// Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Chicago: ACM, 2018: 105-113.
[42]	Qiu H L, Li M L, Shu B Y, et al. Enhancing hospitality experience with service robots: The mediating role of rapport building[J]. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 2020, 29(3): 247-268.
[43]	van Doorn J, Mende M, Noble S M, et al. Domo arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social presence in organizational frontlines and customers’service experiences[J]. Journal of Service Research, 2017, 20(1): 43-58.
[44]	van Pinxteren M M E, Wetzels R W H, Rüger J, et al. Trust in humanoid robots: Implications for services marketing[J]. Journal of Services Marketing, 2019, 33(4): 507-518.
[45]	Waytz A, Norton M I. Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking—not feeling—jobs[J]. Emotion, 2014, 14(2): 434-444.
[46]	Wirtz J, Patterson P G, Kunz W H, et al. Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline[J]. Journal of Service Management, 2018, 29(5): 907-931.
[47]	Złotowski J, Sumioka H, Eyssel F, et al. Model of dual anthropomorphism: The relationship between the media equation effect and implicit anthropomorphism[J]. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2018, 10(5): 701-714.
[48]	曹忠鹏, 胡小丹. 强扭的瓜不甜——顾客被迫使用自助服务技术对态度的影响及机理研究[J]. 南大商学评论, 2020(1): 96-119.
	[CAO Zhongpeng, HU Xiaodan. Mandatory participation is not good: The underlying mechanism of the influence of forced use self-service technologies on customers’ attitudes[J]. Nanjing Business Review, 2020(1): 96-119.]
[49]	崔占峰, 陈义涛. 感知公平和感知真诚在服务补救中的作用[J]. 企业经济, 2019, 38(12): 86-95.
	[CUI Zhanfeng, CHEN Yitao. The role of perceived justice and perceived sincerity in service remediation[J]. Enterprise Economy, 2019, 38(12): 86-95.]
[50]	侯如靖. 酒店机器人服务失败责任归因研究: 失败类型与心灵感知的影响[J]. 旅游科学, 2021, 35(4): 97-107.
	[HOU Rujing. A study on the attribution of responsibility for hotel robot service failure: The influence of failure types and mind perception[J]. Tourism Science, 2021, 35(4): 97-107.]
[51]	李先国, 郑琛誉. 服务机器人拟人化程度对顾客多样化行为的影响机制研究[J]. 工业技术经济, 2021, 40(5): 130-137.
	[LI Xianguo, ZHENG Chenyu. Research on the influence mechanism of service robot anthropomorphism on customers’variety-seeking behavior[J]. Journal of Industrial Technological Economics, 2021, 40(5): 130-137.]
[52]	李新辅. 顾客容忍度与企业决策关系分析[J]. 当代经济, 2018(5): 102-103.
	[LI Xinfu. Analysis of the Relationship between customer tolerance and enterprise decision making[J]. Contemporary Economics, 2018(5): 102-103.]
[53]	吕兴洋, 杨玉帆, 许双玉, 等. 以情补智: 人工智能共情回复的补救效果研究[J]. 旅游学刊, 2021, 36(8): 86-100.
	[LYU Xingyang, YANG Yufan, XU Shuangyu, et al. Emotional intelligence: The effect of AI empathic response on customers’continuance intention of AI service[J]. Tourism Tribune, 2021, 36(8): 86-100.]
[54]	史燕伟, 谢菊兰, 王雅妮, 等. 数字化工作重塑及其对工作绩效的促进作用: 基于人-任务-技术匹配视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(7): 1133-1145.
	[SHI Yanwei, XIE Julan, WANG Yani, et al. Digital job crafting and its positive impact on job performance: The perspective of individual-task-technology fit[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2023, 31(7): 1133-1145.]
[55]	孙乃娟, 李辉. 群发性产品危机后消费者宽恕形成机理研究: 顾客参与的动态驱动效应[J]. 中央财经大学学报, 2017(2): 101-109.
	[SUN Naijuan, LI Hui. The formation mechanism of consumer forgiveness after clustered product crisis: The dynamic driving effect of customer participation[J]. Journal of Central University of Finance & Economics, 2017(2): 101-109.]
[56]	王海忠, 谢涛, 詹纯玉. 服务失败情境下智能客服化身拟人化的负面影响: 厌恶感的中介机制[J]. 南开管理评论, 2021, 24(4): 194-204.
	[WANG Haizhong, XIE Tao, ZHAN Chunyu. When service failed: The detrimental effect of anthropomorphism on intelligent customer service agent avatar-disgust as mediation[J]. Nankai Business Review, 2021, 24(4): 194-204.]
[57]	熊伟, 黄媚娇, 黄苑妃. 酒店服务失败情境下顾客的负性情绪与宽容度的弹性变化[J]. 旅游科学, 2021, 35(4): 53-75.
	[XIONG Wei, HUANG Meijiao, HUANG Yuanfei. Flexibility of customers’emotional responses and forgiveness in hotel-service-failure situations[J]. Tourism Science, 2021, 35(4): 53-75.]
[58]	张赟, 操雅琴, 刘雨. 服务机器人拟人化与用户接受关系模型研究[J]. 重庆科技学院学报(社会科学版), 2022(4): 24-33.
	[ZHANG Yun, CAO Yaqin, LIU Yu. Research on the humanoid service robots and user acceptance relationship model[J]. Journal of Chongqing University of Science and Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2022(4): 24-33.]