Cited by 502AI in Service InteractionsCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltySocial Robot Interaction and HRI

To Err Is Human(-oid): How Do Consumers React to Robot Service Failure and Recovery?

Choi, Sungwoo, Mattila, Anna S., Bolton, Lisa E.·2021·Journal of Service Research

Abstract

Robots are the next wave in service technology; however, this advanced technology is not perfect. This research examines how social perceptions regarding the warmth and competence of service robots influence consumer reactions to service failures and recovery efforts by robots. We argue that humanoid (vs. nonhumanoid) service robots are more strongly associated with warmth (whereas competence does not differ). This tendency to expect greater warmth from humanoid robots has important consequences for service firms: (i) consumers are more dissatisfied due to lack of warmth following a process failure caused by a humanoid (vs. nonhumanoid; Study 1); (ii) humanoids (but not nonhumanoids) can recover a service failure by themselves via sincere apology, restoring perceptions of warmth (Study 2A); (iii) humanoids (but not nonhumanoids) can also effectively provide explanations as a recovery tactic (Study 2B); and, importantly, (iv) human intervention can be used to mitigate dissatisfaction following inadequate recovery by a nonhumanoid robot (Study 3), supporting the notion of human-robot collaboration. Taken together, this research offers theoretical implications for robot anthropomorphism and practical implications for firms employing service robots.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094670520978798

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Requiring user participation can appear as the CA shifting recovery responsibility onto the affected party, contradicting service recovery research where customers expect organizations to take responsibility for failures and make the necessary amends.

    “This can appear as the CA shifting recovery responsibility onto the affected party, contradicting service recovery research where customers expect organizations to take responsibility for failures and make the necessary amends (Choi et al., 2021;McGrath et al., 2025).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choi, S., Mattila, A. S., & Bolton, L. E.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Choi, Sungwoo
Venue
Journal of Service Research
Published
2020-12-16
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
354-371
ISSN
  • 1094-6705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7379
OpenAlex
W3111208172
Cited by
502
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 110 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 14
FWCI
15.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Service Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Marriott Foundation
  • Penn State School of Hospitality Management Grimes-Nicholson Technology Award
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
service robots, humanoid robots, service failure, service recovery, robot anthropomorphism, perceived warmth, perceived competence, customer dissatisfaction, explanation, human-robot collaboration, human intervention

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