The robot saw it coming: physical human interference, deservingness, and self-efficacy in service robot failures

ABSTRACT

Robotic services’ popularity continues to increase due to technological advancements, labour shortages, and global crises. Yet, while providing these services, robots are subject to occasional physical interruption by humans to them, thus restricting their functioning and, at times, leading to failure. To investigate this issue, the present study examined the role of third-party human interference in service robot failures and its effects on the observers’ attitudes towards and willingness to engage with the robot. We manipulated human interference resulting in different robotic service failures in two online scenario-based experiments. The results revealed that individuals held less favourable attitudes towards a failed service robot without (vs. with) physical human interference, and they were less willing to engage with the failed service robot without (vs. with) physical human interference. The perceived deservingness of the robot accounted for this effect, moderated by the person’s self-efficacy regarding robots. The results are discussed with their implications for not only the theory of service failures and human-service robot interactions but also for robotic service providers.

KEYWORDS:

• Service robots
• robotic service failures
• self-efficacy
• deservingness
• attitudes towards robots

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the associate editor and the anonymous reviewers for taking the time and effort necessary to review the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The direction and significance of the effect persist in subsequent MANOVA analyses accounting for demographics and involvement as control variables. Differences in attitudes: p < 0.001, Partial eta-squared (η²p) =  .087, Observed power = .992; Differences in willingness to engage: p = 0.003, Partial eta-squared (η²p) =  .043, Observed power = .850.

2 The significance of the results persists in subsequent MANOVA analyses accounting for demographics (gender, age, income) as control variables. Differences in attitudes: F(1,197) = 145.379, p < 0.001, Partial eta-squared (η²p) = .425, Observed power = 1.000; Differences on willingness to engage: F(1,197) = 69.684, p < 0.001, Partial eta-squared (η²p) = .261, Observed power  = 1.000.

3 The significance of the mediation model persists accounting for demographics (gender, age, income) as control variables (B = −.4350, SE = .1132, 95% CI [−.6754, −.2340]).

4 The significance of the moderation mediation model persists accounting for demographics (gender, age, income) as control variables (B = −.1200, SE = .0651, 95% CI [−0.2598, −0.0042]).

5 The significance of the mediation model persists accounting for demographics (gender, age, income) as control variables (B = −.6192, SE = .1565, 95% CI [−.9522, −.3405]).

6 The significance of the moderation mediation model persists accounting for demographics (gender, age, income) as control variables (B = −.1708, SE = .0981, 95% CI [−0.3895, −0.0073]).