CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Robotic transformative service research: deploying social robots for consumer well-being during COVID-19 and beyond

Henkel, Alexander P., Čaić, Martina, Blaurock, Marah, Okan, Mehmet·2020·Journal of Service Management
DOI 10.1108/josm-05-2020-0145
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: Besides the direct physical health consequences, through social isolation COVID-19 affects a considerably larger share of consumers with deleterious effects for their psychological well-being. Two vulnerable consumer groups are particularly affected: older adults and children. The purpose of the underlying paper is to take a transformative research perspective on how social robots can be deployed for advancing the well-being of these vulnerable consumers and to spur robotic transformative service research (RTSR). Design/methodology/approach: This paper follows a conceptual approach that integrates findings from various domains: service research, social robotics, social psychology and medicine. Findings: Two key findings advanced in this paper are (1) a typology of robotic transformative service (i.e. entertainer, social enabler, mentor and friend) as a function of consumers' state of social isolation, well-being focus and robot capabilities and (2) a future research agenda for RTSR. Practical implications: This paper guides service consumers and providers and robot developers in identifying and developing the most appropriate social robot type for advancing the well-being of vulnerable consumers in social isolation. Originality/value: This study is the first to integrate social robotics and transformative service research by developing a typology of social robots as a guiding framework for assessing the status quo of transformative robotic service on the basis of which it advances a future research agenda for RTSR. It further complements the underdeveloped body of service research with a focus on eudaimonic consumer well-being.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/josm-05-2020-0145

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social chatbots are designed in ways that make these agents capable of eliciting emotional bonds with their users.

    “While many chatbots are embedded with skills that facilitate natural social interaction, social chatbots are designed in ways that make these agents capable of eliciting emotional bonds with their users (Henkel et al., 2020).”

    From How Do Fans Use AI Social Chatbots? A Multi-Method Exploration of Fan Accounts (2026) · cites this paper as Henkel et al., 2020

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. Adalgeirsson, 2010, MeBot: a robotic platform for socially embodied telepresence, 15, 10.1109/HRI.2010.5453272 · DOI
  2. Anderson, 2015, Transformative service research: advancing our knowledge about service and well-being, Journal of Service Research, 18, 243, 10.1177/1094670515591316 · DOI
  3. Anderson, 2013, Transformative service research: an agenda for the future, Journal of Business Research, 66, 1203, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.013 · DOI
  4. Anderson, 2010, Improving well-being through transformative service, Moving Forward And Making A Difference: Research Priorities For The Science Of Service, 13, 4, 10.1177/1094670509357611 · DOI
  5. Barnes, 2020, Customer delight during a crisis: understanding delight through the lens of transformative service research, Journal of Service Management, 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0146 · DOI
  6. Bassuk, 1999, Social disengagement and incident cognitive decline in community-dwelling elderly persons, Annals of Internal Medicine, 131, 165, 10.7326/0003-4819-131-3-199908030-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Baxter, 2017, Robot education peers in a situated primary school study: personalisation promotes child learning, PloS One, 12, 10.1371/journal.pone.0178126 · DOI
  8. Bedaf, 2019, What are the preferred characteristics of a service robot for the elderly? a multi-country focus group study with older adults and caregivers, Assistive Technology, 31, 147, 10.1080/10400435.2017.1402390 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Beran, 2015, Humanoid robotics in health care: an exploration of children's and parents' emotional reactions, Journal of Health Psychology, 20, 984, 10.1177/1359105313504794 · DOI
  10. Bhuvaneswari, 2013, Humanoid robot based physiotherapeutic assistive trainer for elderly health care, 163, 10.1109/ICRTIT.2013.6844199 · DOI
  11. Bougie, 2003, Angry customers don't come back, they get back: the experience and behavioral implications of anger and dissatisfaction in services, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 377, 10.1177/0092070303254412 · DOI
  12. Bove, Restrict, clean and protect: signalling consumer safety during the pandemic and beyond, 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0157 · DOI
  13. Čaić, 2018, Service robots: value co-creation and co-destruction in elderly care networks, Journal of Service Management, 29, 178, 10.1108/JOSM-07-2017-0179 · DOI
  14. Čaić, 2019, Robotic versus human coaches for active aging: an automated social presence perspective, International Journal of Social Robotics, 10.1007/s12369-018-0507-2 · DOI
  15. Cañamero, 2016, Making new ‘New AI’ friends: designing a social robot for diabetic children from an embodied AI perspective, International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 523, 10.1007/s12369-016-0364-9 · DOI
  16. Crompton, 2018, Humanoid robots supporting children's learning in an early childhood setting: humanoid robots supporting children's learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 49, 911, 10.1111/bjet.12654 · DOI
  17. Crossman, 2018, The influence of a socially assistive robot on mood, anxiety, and arousal in children, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49, 48, 10.1037/pro0000177 · DOI
  18. D'Onofrio, 2019, Assistive robots for socialization in elderly people: results pertaining to the needs of the users, Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 31, 1313, 10.1007/s40520-018-1073-z · DOI
  19. Diener, 1999, Personality and subjective wellbeing, 213
  20. Diener, 2012, New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research, American Psychologist, 67, 590, 10.1037/a0029541 · DOI
  21. Furrer, 2003, Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic engagement and performance, Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148, 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148 · DOI
  22. Georgiadis, 2016, A robotic cloud ecosystem for elderly care and ageing well: the GrowMeUp approach, 919, 10.1007/978-3-319-32703-7_179 · DOI
  23. Guo, 2013, Socializing to co-produce: pathways to consumers' financial well-being, Journal of Service Research, 16, 549, 10.1177/1094670513483904 · DOI
  24. Gustafsson, 2015, Conducting service research that matters, Journal of Services Marketing, 29, 425, 10.1108/JSM-02-2015-0103 · DOI
  25. Hall, Beyond panic buying: consumption displacement and COVID-19, Journal of Service Management
  26. Hazée, 2020, Customers' contamination concerns: an integrative framework and future prospects for service management, Journal of Service Management
  27. He, 2017, A survey of human-centered intelligent robots: issues and challenges, IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 4, 602, 10.1109/JAS.2017.7510604 · DOI
  28. Heerink, 2009, Influence of social presence on acceptance of an assistive social robot and screen agent by elderly users, Advanced Robotics, 23, 1909, 10.1163/016918609X12518783330289 · DOI
  29. Heljakka, 2020, Toys that mobilize: past, present and future of phygital playful technology, 625, 10.1007/978-3-030-32523-7_46 · DOI
  30. Henkel, 2017, Storm after the quiet: how marketplace interactions shape consumer resources in collective goal pursuits, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2, 26, 10.1086/690463 · DOI
  31. Henkemans, 2017, Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 106, 63, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.001 · DOI
  32. Hill, 2020, Consumer vulnerability, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30, 551, 10.1002/jcpy.1161 · DOI
  33. Kabadayi, 2020, Fostering older adult care experiences to maximize well-being outcomes: a conceptual framework, Journal of Service Management, 10.1108/JOSM-11-2019-0346 · DOI
  34. Kachouie, 2014, Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30, 369, 10.1080/10447318.2013.873278 · DOI
  35. Kahn, 2012, ‘Robovie, you'll have to go into the closet now’: children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot, Developmental Psychology, 48, 303, 10.1037/a0027033 · DOI
  36. Khaksar, 2016, Service innovation using social robot to reduce social vulnerability among older people in residential care facilities, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113 B, 438, 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.009 · DOI
  37. Khaksar, 2019, Carer's perception on social assistive technology acceptance and adoption: moderating effects of perceived risks, Behaviour and Information Technology, 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1690046 · DOI
  38. Kim, 2013, Am I acceptable to you? effect of a robot's verbal language forms on people's social distance from robots, Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1091, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.001 · DOI
  39. Lehoux, 2018, When robots care: public deliberations on how technology and humans may support independent living for older adults, Social Science and Medicine, 211, 330, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.038 · DOI
  40. Leite, 2008, Are emotional robots more fun to play with?, 77, 10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600646 · DOI
  41. Leite, 2012, Long-term interactions with empathic robots: evaluating perceived support in children, 298, 10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_30 · DOI
  42. Looije, 2016, Integrating robot support functions into varied activities at returning hospital visits: supporting child's self-management of diabetes, International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 483, 10.1007/s12369-016-0365-8 · DOI
  43. Lopez Recio, 2013, The NAO models for the elderly, 187, 10.1109/HRI.2013.6483564 · DOI
  44. McInnis, 2001, A phenomenological exploration of loneliness in the older adult, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 15, 128, 10.1053/apnu.2001.23751 · DOI
  45. Melson, 2009, Children's behavior toward and understanding of robotic and living dogs, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 92, 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.011 · DOI
  46. Meyns, 2019, Do a humanoid robot and music increase the motivation to perform physical activity? a quasi-experimental cohort in typical developing children and preliminary findings in hospitalized children in neutropenia, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 122, 90, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.07.010 · DOI
  47. Moerman, 2019, Social robots to support children's well-being under medical treatment: a systematic state-of-the-art review, Journal of Child Health Care, 23, 596, 10.1177/1367493518803031 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Mori, 1970, The uncanny valley”, Energy, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 33-35, (in Japanese). A translation that was authorized and reviewed by Mori was published in Mori, M., MacDorman, K.F. and Kageki, N. (2012), “The uncanny valley, IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 19, 98, 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Niemiec, 2009, Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice, Theory and Research in Education, 7, 133, 10.1177/1477878509104318 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Oliver, 1997, Customer delight: foundations, findings, and managerial insight, Journal of Retailing, 73, 311, 10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90021-X · DOI
  51. Pirhonen, 2020, Could robots strengthen the sense of autonomy of older people residing in assisted living facilities?—a future-oriented study, Ethics and Information Technology, 22, 151, 10.1007/s10676-019-09524-z · DOI
  52. Price, 1999, Commercial friendships: service provider–client relationships in context, Journal of Marketing, 63, 38, 10.1177/002224299906300405 · DOI
  53. Robinson, 2014, The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review, International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 575, 10.1007/s12369-014-0242-2 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Rosenbaum, 2017, Commentary: vulnerable consumers in service settings, Journal of Services Marketing, 31, 309, 10.1108/JSM-05-2017-0156 · DOI
  55. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, 2018, The effects of humanlike and robot-specific affective nonverbal behavior on perception, emotion, and behavior, International Journal of Social Robotics, 10, 569, 10.1007/s12369-018-0466-7 · DOI
  56. Sandygulova, 2018, Age-and gender-based differences in children's interactions with a gender-matching robot, International Journal of Social Robotics, 10, 687, 10.1007/s12369-018-0472-9 · DOI
  57. Santini, 2020, Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and symptoms of depression and anxiety among older Americans (NSHAP): a longitudinal mediation analysis, The Lancet Public Health, 5, e62, 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30230-0 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Schmidt, 2019, The importance of peer relatedness at school for affective well-being in children: between-and within-person associations, Social Development, 28, 873, 10.1111/sode.12379 · DOI
  59. Shahid, 2014, Child–robot interaction across cultures: how does playing a game with a social robot compare to playing a game alone or with a friend?, Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 86, 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.043 · DOI
  60. Sharkey, 2012, Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly, Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 27, 10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Sinoo, 2018, Friendship with a robot: children's perception of similarity between a robot's physical and virtual embodiment that supports diabetes self-management, Patient Education and Counseling, 101, 1248, 10.1016/j.pec.2018.02.008 · DOI
  62. Sorell, 2014, Robot carers, ethics, and older people, Ethics and Information Technology, 16, 183, 10.1007/s10676-014-9344-7 · DOI
  63. Tanaka, 2007, Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 17954, 10.1073/pnas.0707769104 · DOI
  64. Tuzovic, The influence of social distancing on employee wellbeing: a conceptual framework and research agenda, Journal of Service Management
  65. van Doorn, 2017, Domo arigato Mr. Roboto: emergence of automated social presence in organizational frontlines and customers' service experiences, Journal of Service Research, 20, 43, 10.1177/1094670516679272 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Wang, 2019, Influence of embodiment and substrate of social robots on users' decision-making and attitude, International Journal of Social Robotics, 11, 411, 10.1007/s12369-018-0510-7 · DOI
  67. Wang, 2015, The uncanny valley: existence and explanations, Review of General Psychology, 19, 393, 10.1037/gpr0000056 · DOI
  68. Wirtz, 2018, Brave new world: service robots in the frontline, Journal of Service Management, 29, 907, 10.1108/JOSM-04-2018-0119 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Wu, 2015, Instructional design using an in-house built teaching assistant robot to enhance elementary school English-as-a-foreign-language learning, Interactive Learning Environments, 23, 696, 10.1080/10494820.2013.792844 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Henkel, A. P., Čaić, M., Blaurock, M., & Okan, M.
Affiliations
  • Open University of the Netherlands Department of Organization and Center for Actionable Research of the Open University (CAROU), , Heerlen,
  • Department of Design and Architecture, School of Arts, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland and CERS - Centre for Relationship Marketing and Service Management, Hanken School of Economics , Helsinki,
  • University of Hohenheim Department of Marketing and Management, ,Stuttgart,
  • Faculty of Management , , Artvin,
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Service Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2020-08-28
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
1131-1148
ISSN
  • 1757-5818
  • 1757-5826
DOI
10.1108/josm-05-2020-0145
Cited by
173
References
21
Language
en

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