The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When does technology anthropomorphism help alleviate customer dissatisfaction after a service failure? – The moderating role of consumer technology self-efficacy and interdependent self-construal
Abstract
Given the increasing presence of humanoid service robots at airports, hotels and restaurants, the current study investigates how consumers’ interdependent self-construal and technology self-efficacy jointly influence their reactions to service machines with humanlike features in a service failure context. The results demonstrate that consumers show varying levels of dissatisfaction with a service failure caused by an anthropomorphic (vs. non-anthropomorphic) self-service machine depending on their levels of interdependent self-construal (high vs. low) and technology self-efficacy (high vs. low). The underlying mechanism is self-blame. The theoretical contributions to the existing service technology research and the emerging anthropomorphism literature are discussed. This research also provides practical guidelines to industry practitioners for more efficient usage of service robots in delivering customer service.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research
Fournier, S. (1998) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209515 · Cited by 7,542
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069 · cited 4×
“Epley et al. ’ s model of anthropomorphism (Epley et al., 2007) indicates that sociality (i.e., perceived level of a ffi liation with robotic agents) and e ff ectance (i.e., perceived ability to control the robotic agents) should in fl uence consumers ’ responses to anthropomorphic machines.”
BackgroundInfluentialMachines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153 · Cited by 4,022 · cited 1×
“…cally, this theory suggests that when interacting with an anthropomorphic technology agent (e.g., computers, robots, etc.), people tend to re fl exively respond in a social manner by making social attributions to such humanlike technology agents (Moon, 2003; Nass & Moon, 2000; Reeves & Nass, 1996).”
BackgroundData collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242
Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/518544 · Cited by 1,078 · cited 4×
“Speci fi cally, anthropomorphic characteristics act as social cues (Aggarwal, 2004; Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Fournier, 1998), thus enhancing attraction to and liking of the machine (Aaker, 1997; Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Verhagen et al., 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialService Recovery and Fairness Perceptions in Collectivist and Individualist Contexts
Mattila, A. S., & Patterson, P. G. (2004) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670503262947 · Cited by 325 · cited 1×
“In social interactions, people ’ s view of the self (i.e., self-construal) has a strong impact on their perceptions of social others (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Mattila & Patterson, 2004; Wei, Miao, Cai, & Adler, 2012).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Cited by
Alabed, A., Javornik, A., & Gregory-Smith, D. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121786 · Cited by 233
Kim, J. H., Kim, J., Park, J., Kim, C., Jhang, J., & King, B. (2025) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/00472875231212996 · Cited by 202
Anthropomorphism in hospitality and tourism: A systematic review and agenda for future research
Ding, A., Lee, R. H., Legendre, T. S., & Madera, J. (2022) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.07.018 · Cited by 96
When Robot (Vs. Human) Employees Say “Sorry” Following Service Failure
Wang, X., Hwang, Y., & Guchait, P. (2023) · International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration · doi:10.1080/15256480.2021.2017812 · Cited by 60
Song, M., Zhu, Y., Xing, X., & Du, J. (2024) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2285943 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Fan, A., Wu, L. (., Miao, L., & Mattila, A. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-07-19
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 269-290
- ISSN
- 1936-8623 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-8631
- OpenAlex
- W2963852900
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 7.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: When does technology anthropomorphism help alleviate customer dissatisfaction after a service failure? – The moderating role of consumer technology self-efficacy and interdependent self-construal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/19368623.2019.1639095
- The paper
- Fan, A., Wu, L. (., Miao, L., & Mattila, A. S. (2020). When does technology anthropomorphism help alleviate customer dissatisfaction after a service failure? – The moderating role of consumer technology self-efficacy and interdependent self-construal. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1639095
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
