ENTER2018 eTourism Conference presentation

1. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 1
Consumer Evaluation of
Hotel Service Robots
Iis P. Tussyadiah Sangwon Park
University of Surrey
United Kingdom
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Hong Kong
i.tussyadiah@surrey.ac.uk sangwon.park@polyu.edu.hk

2. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 2
Background
AI & RPA
Service
Robots
Hospitality

3. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 3
Importance
Efficiency
Service
Experience
Service
Value
Investment vs.
labour cost
HRI
User satisfaction
Osawa et al., 2017

4. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 4
Goals
Study 1. Understand consumer evaluation
of hotel service robots and its influence on
adoption intention
Study 2. Identify consumer reactions to
different types of service robots (NAO vs.
Relay)

5. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 5
Evaluation?

6. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 6
HRI Dimensions
Bartneck et al., 2009a; 2009b; Scholl & Tremoulet, 2000
Godspeed
Scale
Anthropo-
morphism
Animacy
LikeabilityIntelligence
Safety

7. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 7
Study 1: Design
• HRI Dimensions → Behavioural Intention
• Stimuli: NAO (check-in) vs. Relay (Delivery)
• Control: perceived importance of operation
• Online questionnaire by SSI
• Sample: 841 UK (48%) and US (52%)
consumers; NAO (421) and Relay (420)
• Analysis: PLS-SEM

8. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 8
Study 1: Estimates

9. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 9
Study 1: MGA
NAO (Intent = 2.98*):
Anthropomorphism (b = 0.235)
Perceived Safety (b = 0.259)
Relay (Intent = 3.28*):
Perceived Intelligence (b = 0.192)
Importance of Operation (b = 0.223)
*NAO = 2.98, Relay = 3.28; t = -3.59, p < .001

10. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 10
HRI Dimensions of Interest
Bartneck et al., 2009a; 2009b; Scholl & Tremoulet, 2000
Godspeed
Scale
Anthropo-
morphism
Animacy
LikeabilityIntelligence
Safety

11. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 11
Study 2: Design
• Lab testing with biosensors (n = 32):
– Eye-tracking: visual attention
– Galvanic skin response (GSR) and optical heart
rate: emotional arousal
– Facial action coding software: emotional
valence
• Stimuli: NAO (check-in) vs. Relay (Delivery)

12. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 12
Study 2: Visual Attention

13. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 13
Study 2: Visual Attention

14. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 14
Study 2: Visual Attention

15. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 15
Study 2: Visual Attention

16. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 16
Study 2: Visual Attention

17. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 17
Study 2: GSR Peaks
NAO Image
Relay Image
NAO:
73% had peaks
Highest: 5
8 ppm
Relay:
71% had peaks
Highest: 2
6.3 ppm

18. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 18
Study 2: GSR Peaks
NAO Video
Relay Video
NAO:
87% had peaks
Highest: 12
4.6 ppm
Relay:
100% had peaks
Highest: 15
4 ppm

19. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 19
Study 2: GSR Peaks

20. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 20
Study 2: PPG vs. GSR
85
90
95
100
105
110
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5

21. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 21
Study 2: Valence
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Anger
Disgust
Joy
Surprise
Contempt
Engagement
Positive
Negative
Relay Video NAO Video

22. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 22
General Findings
• Attribution of human characteristics: visual
attention on the face.
• Safety concerns: heightened emotional
arousal during “transaction” and “task
fulfilment”
• Intelligence: emotional arousal and
attention during “navigation”

23. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 23
Implications
• Essential services: increase safety and
infuse humanlike characters.
• Non-essential services: functionality,
maybe interpreted as intelligence.

24. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 24
Limitations
• Second-hand experience
• Persuasiveness of stimuli
• Experimentations not perfectly comparable

25. ENTER 2018 Research Track Slide Number 25
THANK YOU!
Iis P. Tussyadiah
i.tussyadiah@surrey.ac.uk
Sangwon Park
sangwon.park@polyu.edu.hk