Electronic Markets

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00434-3

RESEARCH PAPER

Man vs machine: examining the three themes of service robotics

in tourism and hospitality
Aikaterini Manthiou 1 & Phil Klaus 2 & Volker G. Kuppelwieser 1 & William Reeves 1

Received: 7 February 2020 / Accepted: 15 July 2020

# Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2020

Abstract
There is a growing need in the tourism and hospitality literature to harmonise service robots and artificial intelligence’s (AI) meaning
and foundations, while also offering guidance on future discussions and research. We operationalize MacInnis’ Journal of
Marketing, 75(4), 136–154, (2011) conceptual contribution to derive insights regarding service robots in the tourism and hospitality
domain. This paper adopts an interdisciplinary stance and integrates insights from the tourism, hospitality, philosophy, psychology,
sociology, management, robotics, information technology and marketing fields. Service robotics and related tourism and hospitality
research follow three basic themes: deployment, acceptance and ethical considerations. The findings on the use of service robotics
are subsequently delineated and a summary of the tourism and hospitality field’s current research needs is provided.

Keywords Artificial intelligence . Service robots . Deployment . Acceptance . Ethical considerations

JEL classification M3 Marketing

Introduction already serve travel, tourism and hospitality companies as a

robot guide at a museum, a bag-drop robot at an airport and a
Academics and practitioners are increasingly interested in ap- robot chef at a restaurant (Ivanov et al. 2017). Strong compe-
plying robotic technology to tourism and hospitality (e.g., tition, a shortage of manpower, the need for greater produc-
Chan and Tung 2019; Murphy et al. 2017). Service robots tivity and efficiency as well as changing guest expectations
have led to service robotics’ increased use (Lee et al. 2020;
Ivanov and Webster 2017a). A McKinsey Global Institute
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Artificial Intelligence (AI) report (2018) on disruptive technologies estimated advanced
and Robotics in Travel, Tourism and Leisure robotics’ potential economic impact. According to this report,
Responsible Editor: Ulrike Gretzel advanced robotics will drive artificial intelligence (AI), which
has the potential to add $13 trillion to the global economic
* Aikaterini Manthiou output by 2030. In turn, this increased economic input could
aikaterini.manthiou@neoma-bs.fr increase the global gross domestic product (GDP) by about
1.2% per year. Tourism and hospitality businesses react by
Phil Klaus
pklaus@monaco.edu
strategically acquiring or building the assets to compete in this
advanced environment (Tung and Law 2017). For example,
Volker G. Kuppelwieser Crowne Plaza deploys a robotic butler to deliver food and
volker.kuppelwieser@neoma-bs.fr
drinks to hotel guests, demonstrating its possible future in
William Reeves room service (Hutchinson 2015). Royal Caribbean Cruises
william.reeves@neoma-bs.fr
introduced robotic bartenders that mix two drinks per minute
1 from an endless list of cocktail combinations (Royal
NEOMA Business School,
1 Rue du Maréchal Juin, 76825 Mont-Saint-Aignan, France Caribbean Press Center 2019), while car rental companies
2 could eventually use self-driving cars (Tussyadiah, Zach and
International University of Monaco INSEEC Research Center,
2 Avenue Albert II, 98000 Monaco, Monaco Wang 2017). Before robotic automation does eventually

become part of tourism experience and replaces interpersonal
contact, the human to robot transformation will, however,
need to be handled very sensitively (Tussyadiah 2020).
This study combines and consolidates cross-disciplinary
literature from the hospitality and tourism, marketing, psy-
chology, management, economics, robotics, information tech-
nology and sociology fields. This paper offers an all-
encompassing, but still parsimonious, perspective of service
robots’ influence and addresses its intricacy. Moreover, this
research operationalizes MacInnis’s (2011) framework by de-
fining and conceptualising the service robot domain, thereby
advancing hospitality and tourism literature as well as practice
in the following ways: firstly, this research offers a multi-
perspective literature review that condenses the fundamental
properties. The objective is to exemplify the existing under-
standing of service robots’ influence on tourism and hospital-
ity by using MacInnis’s (2011) well-established framework.
Secondly, this study defines and describes the three themes of
service robots’ influence on tourists, the tourism business and
society. Thirdly, this research provides various guidelines that
help managers strengthen their implementation strategies for
service-robot-driven development and implementation in a
tourism and hospitality context. These strategies might not
only lead to direct changes in daily practices, but could also
induce a significant change in long-term strategic thinking
(Jaworski 2011). Lastly, this study identifies various future
research opportunities for an effective stream of tourism re-
search. Through an extensive literature review, the paper not
only adds structure and clarity, but also builds a foundation to
advance service robots and AI knowledge development in the
tourism and hospitality context.
The study is structured as follows: the first section explains
the methodological consideration. The second section de-
velops MacInnis’s (2011) conceptual model by using
summarisation to provide a cross-disciplinary literature re-
view, integration to lay service robots’ conceptual foundations
in tourism and hospitality via three themes, and using delin-
eation to make the case of employment. The third section
discusses the practical and theoretical implications. The fourth
and last section proposes the direction for future tourism re-
search based on the following three themes: deployment, ac-
ceptance, and societal consideration.
Methodological considerations
Following the guidance of MacInnis’s (2011) conceptual ty-
pology, we employ a three-step analytical procedure:
summarisation, integration and delineation. Thereafter, a liter-
ature review summarises and synthesises the existing tourism
and hospitality knowledge and its application to service robot-
ics. This study focuses on identifying robotic application
themes in the tourism and hospitality domain. The first theme
A. Manthiou et al.
refers to the greatest challenge facing society and tourism
firms: finding a way to utilise robot technologies’ benefits. If
this challenge is suitably addressed, it will provide vast oppor-
tunities for new tourism and hospitality services. Finding an
answer will also allow significant productivity gains while
evading the dangers of higher unemployment and an even
more skewed wealth distribution. This study therefore dis-
cusses service robots’ influence on tourists, society, the equal
distribution of wealth, and the tourism and hospitality employ-
ment landscape.
Summarisation
The goal of summarisation is to “take stock of existing knowl-
edge…and to reduce it to a manageable set of key takeaways
(MacInnis 2011)”. A summary could support those re-
searchers who can no longer see the forest for the trees. In
order to best capture the thinking on service robots and AI,
this paper provides an evolutionary viewpoint of the service
robots literature. This reconsideration also highlights service
robots’ importance for practitioners, therefore extending and
expanding our investigation and knowledge of them.
To assess the state of service robot research, this research
analysed empirical and conceptual articles published between
1942 and 2020, using various scientific databases (e.g.,
Emerald, Science Direct, JSTOR and Google Scholar) to
identify appropriate work. We used the following search
terms: AI, Artificial Intelligence, Service, Robots, Robotics,
Automation, Marketing, Management, Consulting, Ethics,
Employment, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, Society,
and Tourism and Hospitality. We supplemented the search
by screening major tourism and hospitality journals, the cho-
sen articles’ references and major companies and consulting
firms’ research reports and white papers (e.g., World
Economic Forum, PwC, Forbes and Financial Times).
Our literature review is not restricted to tourism and hospi-
tality. Although authors have often submitted works on ser-
vice robots and AI as a ‘hot topic,’ robots and their influence
on society in general have been debated for many decades and
have deep roots in science (Asimov 1942). Consequently, a
truly comprehensive understanding of the latter is only gained
“when many relevant perspectives have been discovered,
evaluated, and juxtaposed” (Gioia and Pitre 1990, p. 596).
We followed Brown et al.’s (2005) recommendation to adopt
a multi-paradigm view examining writings on service robots
in the fields of sociology, management, philosophy, robotics,
psychology, hospitality tourism, information technology, and
marketing. This meta-perspective provides a richer picture of
service robots, the phenomenon of interest.
The initial search provided a total of 324 articles published
between 1942 and 2020 (inclusive), which we reviewed, bas-
ing our final selection on the relevance of a paper’s focus
Man vs machine: examining the three themes of service robotics in tourism and hospitality
(Wolfswinkel et al. 2013). In total, 175 academic and 24 man-
agerial focal contributions were identified.
Integration
Integration aims to find affiliations and associations between
previous knowledge in order to discover a new, advanced
understanding of how different literature themes and elements
are connected (Mele et al. 2015). Integration comprises syn-
thesis, i.e. creating a bigger picture (i.e., service robots’ influ-
ence on society) from an assortment of available parts (i.e.,
cross-disciplinary insights into service robots). Integration
therefore offers a parsimonious and simplified view of a pre-
viously considered complex phenomenon (MacInnis 2011).
This study integrates the summarised findings to advance a
general definition of service robots’ role in society, describe
their foundation and to establish service robots’ fundamental
properties, thus offering a foundation for further discussion.
Delineation
Delineation requires portraying a specific object, service ro-
bots and AI, to demonstrate how it relates to and interacts with
other concepts. According to MacInnis (2011, p. 144):
“Delineation entails the goal of detailing, articulating,
charting, describing, or depicting an entity”. Delineation’s
aim is therefore to comprehend a phenomenon of interest bet-
ter by understanding its associations and connections with
other concepts. In short, delineation allows one to better un-
derstand the entity’s conceptual network (MacInnis 2011) and
provides a unique view of this entity.
This study focuses on how societies as well as tourism and
hospitality businesses should utilise service robot technolo-
gies’ benefits by detailing the specific grounds for using ser-
vice robots. In addition, the study argues that a clear under-
standing of service robots’ influence on society is crucial for
the tourism and hospitality domain.
Summarisation: a cross-disciplinary review
of the literature
Definitions
Researchers across disciplines define service robots’ autono-
my, interaction and purpose differently. Given the study’s
focus, this research adopts Wirtz et al.’s (2018, p. 3) definition
of service robots as “system-based autonomous and adaptable
interfaces that interact, communicate and deliver service to an
organization’s customers.”
This definition incorporates important aspects of robot
utilisation in a customer service setting: their (system-based)
autonomy and flexible interfaces and, primarily, their
interaction with tourists and the delivery of services to these
tourists. System-based autonomy allows service robots to col-
lect data via their sensors, identify a situation and react ac-
cordingly (Allen et al. 2000). This approach allows them to
adjust to a situation and apply knowledge absorbed from pre-
vious episodes (Pagallo 2013);this particular learning ability
enables a service robot to provide an automated social pres-
ence (ASP) during its customer service interaction. For exam-
ple, Tussyadiah and Miller (2019) suggest that a virtual assis-
tant and companion robot in hotel rooms could provide cues in
terms of agency and surveillance, thus triggering ASP. AI
subsequently drives these components, which are critical for
a successful service robot interaction with a consumer in a
tourism setting (Maklan and Klaus 2011).
Pagallo (2013) notes that, as technology evolves, service
robots will be integrated into larger information systems and
provide even more robust service options. Service robots
could, for example, be used to collect data via embedded
sensors in cameras, microphones and biometric scanners
(Calo 2012). By accessing cloud-based or knowledge data-
bases, service robots could provide tourists with a highly
personalised and tailored experience (Pagallo 2013).
Researchers discuss these applications as examples of
technology-driven service innovation. A service innovation
could utilise one or more of these dimensions to give a tourism
company a competitive lead (Bharadwaj et al. 1993). For in-
stance, the costs of an investment in service robots could yield
financial benefits quickly by reducing the number of required
management and training employees (Bilgihan et al. 2011). In
the following section, these definitions are expanded to reveal
the three fundamental service robot research properties.
Three fundamental service robot research properties
This study assigns three fundamental service robot literature
dimensions: The first dimension represents the prerequisites
for and application of AI on a micro and macro level (see
Fig. 1).
Application
Huang and Rust (2018) identify four intelligence types: me-
chanical, analytical, intuitive and empathetic. These types ad-
vance in levels, with each level being more emotionally com-
plex than the previous one. Service robots are currently per-
ceived as at a disadvantage regarding executing emotionally
complex tasks. Consequently, a well-trained human work-
force still performs such tasks better (Autor et al. 2003).
Researchers agree, however, that service robots will develop
the skill sets they need for the mechanical, analytical and
intuitive levels fairly rapidly (Manyika et al. 2017).
Consequently, such advances mean that the tasks on the latter
levels are regarded as candidates for service robot replacement

Fig. 1 Service robots in tourism
and hospitality. Service robot
implications for the tourist, the
tourism and hospitality business,
and society Service
Robots
– probably sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, researchers
don’t agree on the time frame required for service robots to
master empathetic intelligence (Manyika et al. 2013, 2017).
From a physical point of view, robots need the functional-
ity required to carry out all the tasks in a tourism-related con-
text. Currently, it is not cost-effective to equip robots for a
wide variety of tasks; consequently, service robots are limited
regarding the tasks they can perform (Frey and Osborne
2017). Wirtz et al. (2018) use a hotel service technician as
an example to demonstrate the difficulty such robots could
encounter. These technicians deal with a wide array of tasks,
ranging from opening locked doors, climbing ladders, and
providing emergency plumbing services, to repairing air con-
ditioning units. The degree of complexity and investment re-
quired for a service robot to handle these services is currently
not feasible (Wirtz et al. 2018). Service robots are far more
likely to be deployed for specific tasks, such as delivering
luggage or dealing with physically challenging tasks.
However, task completion alone may not suffice to ensure a
successful or positive consumer interaction (Jones and Sasser
1995), although other customer-facing tasks may be.
Consistent service delivery is considered an area in which
service robots have a distinct advantage over their human
counterparts (Bishop 2006). When using service robots to
convey information, they distribute this to all relevant em-
ployees, who could also be jointly trained, resulting in a rela-
tively quickly trained force with equal capabilities (Veloso
et al. 2012). Furthermore, robots can implement changes in a
protocol at the same speed, uniformity and efficiency (Decker
et al. 2017). Consequently, the consumer experiences are sta-
ble across all the interactions and the personalisation of con-
sistent quality, both of which benefit consumers (Huang and
Rust 2018). However, is it possible for robots to provide more
empathetic services, such as those which hospitality and tour-
ism require?
Korchut et al. (2017) illustrate service robots’ ability to
provide people with positive interactions. These interactions
can range from general, health-promoting exercises (Kim
et al. 2013; Riether et al. 2012) to social mediation (Riether
et al. 2012), interactions (Wainer et al. 2007), consumers
A. Manthiou et al.
Tourist
Application Micro Level
Impact on
in Business
tourism
and hospitality
Impact on Society Macro Level
responses (Mende et al. 2019) and companionship (Kim
et al. 2013). This paper reviews and elaborates on these inter-
actions in the following sections.
Micro-level impacts
Service robots vs human counterparts To date, a substantial
literature stream has focused on identifying the differ-
ences between service robots and their human counter-
parts (e.g., Čaić et al. 2018; Marinova et al. 2016;
McKinsey and Co 2017).
Robots and humans vary significantly with regard to de-
ployment preparation (Zheng et al. 2013). Human beings are
individuals and have immensely diverse skill sets, experiences
and competences (Klaus and Zaichkowsky 2020). For exam-
ple, every person can respond to training and education in a
different way. All individuals adopt training and education in
a different way, leading to different understandings of what
they were educated on (Klaus and Zaichkowsky 2020).
People have restricted recollection capabilities, thus hospital-
ity and tourism companies need to devote resources to gain
access to supplementary resources. This highlights that the
customer experience delivery in the tourism and hospitality
context relies heavily on the employee’s skill set (Beaujean
et al. 2006), and personal factors capable of influencing the
employee and the service delivery alike, (e.g., Barnes et al.
2015). All of these factors can lead to a large variance in terms
of service delivery and how it is being perceived by the tour-
ism and hospitality customer (Klaus and Zaichkowsky 2020).
Service robots’ deployment offers a more consistent service
delivery with less potential for misleading or incorrect infor-
mation (Giger et al. 2007).
Compared to service robots, human service representatives
have advantages in a number of areas, for example, in terms of
soft or non-routine skills (e.g., Roongruangsee et al. 2016).
Soft skills include the ability to communicate, listen and ne-
gotiate effectively, and to demonstrate flexibility and empathy
(Rafaeli et al. 2017). Unlike service robots, which only mimic
emotions (Adams et al. 2000), humans can actually have gen-
uine emotions and engage in deep acting (Wasielewski 1985).
Man vs machine: examining the three themes of service robotics in tourism and hospitality
These skills are most desirable in service delivery, because
consumers prefer to interact with others who can build an
emotional connection (Mesmer-Magnus et al. 2012).
Furthermore, humans can engage in divergent thinking, which
allows them to solve problems with novel or creative solutions
(Brown and Wyatt 2010). Conversely, service robots’ pro-
gramming constrains them by only allowing them to solve
problems based on their algorithms and solution sets.
Human soft skills are therefore regarded as a source of com-
petitive advantage (Roongruangsee et al. 2016), but are
projected to decrease in number and importance (Belk 2017).
Human service delivery can also be costly and scarce.
Service robots present an opportunity to deliver certain ser-
vices at lower costs, increase access to hospitality and tourism
consumption, and provide a better quality of life (Van der
Loos et al. 2016). These points lead to the question: For which
types of tasks are robots best-suited, and which ones are best
left to their human counterparts? In the next section, this study
explores this question in the context of customer experience
delivery and management.
Experiences Tourists attach great value to their perceived ex-
periences (De Keyser et al. 2015). The factors that contribute
to this view include customers’ perceptions of the rapport,
engagement and trust, also known as soft skills (Chong
2007). According to Tussyadiah et al. (2020), when robotic
automation enters the realm of tourism experiences, it will
replace interpersonal contact and completely transform the
currently theorised tourism experience. Based on their study
in a hotel setting, Chan and Tung (2019) submit that guests
experience higher levels of sensory and intellectual experience
when interacting with a robotic service, but lower levels of
affective experience. Their research could not determine
whether robotic service could enhance the customer experi-
ence and, if so, in which context. The question therefore re-
mains whether service robots can deliver favourable customer
experience perceptions that mirror tourists’ requirements and,
if so, how, when and why?
Wirtz et al. (2018) propose the Service Robot
Acceptance Model (sRAM) to explain customers’ willing-
ness to conduct most of their interactions with firms via
robots. The sRAM is based on the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) (Davis 1989), which posits that customers’
“willingness to use a new technology depends on the cog-
nitive evaluation of its perceived usefulness and ease of
use” (Wirtz et al. 2018, p. 10). Unlike TAM, the sRAM
incorporates customers’ social-emotional and relational
needs (Beer et al. 2010). Researchers have therefore exam-
ined elements of customers’ social-emotional and relation-
al needs (Van Doorn et al. 2017), most notably their per-
ceived humanness (Haslam et al. 2013), social interactivity
(Sohn and Lee 2005) and social presence (Hassanein and
Head 2007).
If service robots were to satisfy one, some, or all of these
needs, will they then be perceived as human? Wuenderlich
and Paluch (2017) demonstrate that consumers already find
it difficult to determine whether their service interactions are
with a robot or a human. Their research found that more than
half of their respondents could not tell whether a human or a
chat bot was serving them. Research largely supports the idea
that, in a customer-facing situation, service robots should have
anthropomorphic features (Bengtsson et al. 1999), since incor-
porating such forms or behaviours is a prerequisite for suc-
cessful human-robot interactions (Duffy 2003). Epley et al.
(2008) point out that service robots should not look too hu-
man, because if they do, people will expect them to act like
real humans (Tinwell et al. 2011). This idea is not new to the
literature, since Mori (1970) and Mori et al. (2012) previously
presented the uncanny valley theory, which states that an ar-
tificial face becomes more preferable the closer it resembles a
human, but only until it becomes almost indistinguishable
from a human (Bartneck et al. 2009). Despite being familiar,
an overly similar look can reduce people’s willingness to in-
teract with service robots, as they are then perceived as unnat-
ural and off-putting (Tinwell et al. 2011). One could argue that
an almost-human look raises people’s expectations of the
socio-emotional and relational needs that robots could satisfy.
Social presence is a difficult trait for service robots to dis-
play, as this refers to the belief one has that someone is truly
present (Heerink et al. 2008). This belief affects customers’
acceptance of service robots and influences their behaviours
(Heerink et al. 2010; Van Doorn et al. 2017). Social presence
is closely linked to empathy intelligence (Leite et al. 2013),
which is widely regarded as the most difficult trait for robots
to master and the least likely to become a reality anytime soon
(Kwak et al. 2013).
Beyond social interactivity and social presence, researchers
identify trust and rapport as key factors of robot acceptance
(Nomura and Kanda 2016). Trust is defined as the perceived
competence and compassion of a target of trust (Doney and
Cannon 1997). In the context of human-robot interactions,
emotional trust, or the degree to which an individual feels
psychologically secure, depends on the trustee and becomes
more important (Komiak and Benbasat 2006). Researchers
therefore focus on examining the degree of anthropomor-
phism as a key source of trust (Grandey 2003; Mesmer-
Magnus et al. 2012; Tielman et al. 2014). Worryingly, re-
search highlights that people tend to display apprehension
and distrust of robots (Gray and Wegner 2012).
Nevertheless, following Chenet et al. (1999), this study main-
tains that trust is an outcome of all interactions with a firm
rather than being purely appearance-based.
Rapport is a robot acceptance component that can build
trust (Campbell et al. 2006). Building rapport is essential in
services requiring much social closeness and affiliation
(Gaglio et al. 2006). Researchers demonstrate that, in order

to increase rapport, robot design should include hand gestures,
verbal acknowledgment (Wilson et al. 2017), engagement in
collaborative tasks (Seo et al. 2018) and personalised interac-
tions (Lee et al. 2012).
In order for service robots to gain widespread consumer
acceptance, their social interactivity, social presence, and rap-
port skills need to be developed to match consumer expecta-
tions. Rapport skills are even more important when consumers
require a feeling of social closeness. In the next section, we
explore possible adoption of robotic service in the tourism and
hospitality business context.
Tourism and hospitality business The tourism business in-
cludes operations, human resources, marketing’s and fi-
nances’ functions, which can all be partially or completely
run by means of robotic intervention. An example is the
unique Henn na Hotel in Japan, which is mainly staffed by
robots. At the front desk, polyglot robots greet the guests and
help them check in or out. A robot stores the guests’ luggage
in their rooms, for which they do not need a key, since the
hotel uses a face recognition system (Henn na Hotel 2020).
Tourism and hospitality managers wanting to implement
service robots in their business operations need to pay atten-
tion to two areas to gain their customers’ trust: the design and
the communication (Klaus and Zaichkowsky 2020). In terms
of design, service robots’ physical appearance should match
their intended functions in order to appear trustworthy. In
terms of communication, service robots should convey posi-
tive sentiments to shape customers’ opinion about their bene-
fits (Tussyadiah et al. 2020). Moreover, if multiple robots
provide service simultaneously in a servicescape or in tourism
businesses, the personnel and customers will need to adapt
accordingly (Lu et al. 2020). For instance, the tourism and
hospitality business environments are full of people and ob-
stacles; consequently, they are not always accessible for ser-
vice robots. The degree to which and the way robotic services
will be used also raise ethical questions that will be discussed
in the following section.
Macro-level impacts
Researchers highlight that service robots’ widespread ethical
implications need to be discussed in-depth (Delvaux 2017),
particularly in the tourism and hospitality context (Buhalis
et al. 2019). The relationship between ethics and robots has
long been discussed, dating back to Asimov (1942) and his
Three Laws of Robotics. Over the years, academics, fiction
and non-fiction authors as well as the media have continued to
pay attention to this issue, which warrants closer examination
(Iphofen and Kritikos 2019).
Ethical marketing is defined as “practices that emphasize
transparent, trustworthy, and responsible personal and/or or-
ganizational marketing policies and actions that exhibit
A. Manthiou et al.
integrity as well as fairness to consumers and other stake-
holders” (Murphy et al. 2012, p. 4). In terms of service robots,
the ethical position that the rights of the weakest should be
preserved and inequalities guarded against when developing
and deploying robots expands the definition of ethical market-
ing (Veruggio and Abney 2012).
Ethics is “concerned with questions of what ought to be
done, not just what legally must be done” (Cunningham 1999,
p. 500). Societies often create laws reflecting their ethical
judgments, but not always. According to Drumwright
(1994), it is a “fundamental mistake […] to assume that be-
cause something is legal, it is ethical, or that if something is
unethical, it will be made illegal.” Ethics often requires judg-
ments about issues that the law has yet to address. Ivanov et al.
(2019) mention that a hospitality and tourism company’s ex-
ternal environment includes legal and ethical issues arising
from robots’ use, their impact on the labour market, etc.
Privacy and security receive the most attention from aca-
demia and the media (Simon 2018). For instance, the applica-
tion of robotics and AI virtual agents in hotel rooms to provide
surveillance could mean transgressing guests’ privacy
(Tussyadiah 2020). Lobschat et al. (2019) define corporate
digital responsibility (CDR) as “the set of shared values and
norms guiding an organisation’s operations with respect to
four main processes related to digital technology and data:
the creation of technology and data capture; operation and
decision making; inspection and impact assessment; and the
refinement of technology and data.”. Another fear relates to
robots’ vulnerability to hacking, which could alter their be-
haviours (Denning et al. 2009). The sheer amount of informa-
tion that service robots, their various sensors and interfaces
collect about consumers makes consumers feel uncomfortable
(Calo 2012).
Anthropomorphic robots in the tourism and hospitality do-
main could raise ethical concerns regarding representation,
specifically in terms of gender, race and ethnicity (Riek and
Howard 2014). The vast majority of existing robots with hu-
manoid features have either Asian or Caucasian features, with
no apparent reason for this strong bias (Robertson 2010).
Robots without Asian or Caucasian features tend to resemble
the “Hollywood stereotype”: large, grey and box-shaped
(Riek and Howard 2014). The hyper-sexualisation or over-
feminisation of female robots is also a cause for concern in
the industry (Draude 2011).
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that, from an ethical view-
point, it is imperative to contemplate the unintended or un-
foreseen consequences of robot applications. For example, a
mistake in the hotel bill or a service failure due to an automat-
ed service could have a negative impact on guests’ percep-
tions. Academics have begun examining the ethical dilemmas
that arise with regard to robots, specifically the issue of where
to assign blame when a robot makes a mistake (Hubbard
2014). Whether the robot, its owners, or its designers should
Man vs machine: examining the three themes of service robotics in tourism and hospitality

shoulder the blame is currently being debated (Wagner 2018).
The above are just a few examples of the ethical challenges yet
to be resolved.
In the following section, this study identifies the three
themes present in service robotics literature.
Integration: laying the conceptual
foundations of service robots
The review above highlights the generally shared principles
regarding service robot definitions and applications. In this
and the following sections, the aim is to integrate and decode
the overall understandings of service robots in order to syn-
thesise them. This step will present the perceived influences as
discussed in the literature.
This study distinguishes between three basic service robot
themes in tourism and hospitality, each of which constitute the
basis for a service robot application on which the reviewed
disciplines agree.
Deployment is the first basic theme of service robots,
which holds that they will be deployed in three waves, with
their capabilities defining each wave. Each successive wave
will represent greater opportunities in terms of the tasks that
robots can undertake and an increased risk of human workers
in the hospitality and tourism industry being replaced.
Acceptance is the second basic theme, which holds that
service robots require certain traits to be accepted in an inter-
action with a tourist or guest. Consequently, the automated
social presence (ASP), which the hospitality and tourism busi-
ness utilise, should have appropriate (and varying) levels of
anthropomorphism, trust and rapport.
Societal considerations, the third basic theme, which holds
that besides providing opportunities, using service robots re-
quires taking these considerations into account to develop the
tourism and hospitality business. The relevant stakeholders
should holistically examine when and how to utilise service
robots as well as taking many issues into account, ranging
from preventing isolation to job displacement, and ensure that
they are used optimally.
The themes can stand alone, but certainly have the po-
tential to influence one another. For example, the capabil-
ities that characterise the deployment phase enable greater
anthropomorphism, trust and rapport, all of which consti-
tute most of the acceptance theme. As such, these themes
should not be examined in isolation, but rather as a system
of interplaying factors.
The following sections discuss the three service robot
research themes in detail. Figure 2 offers a depiction of
service robots’ holistic conceptualisation as developed
from our analysis.
Delineation: the case of employment
In this study, we use delineation and relate service robots to
employment, showing the impact of a construct/object/do-
main on another construct (MacInnis 2011). Various studies
have previously used delineation in this way, for example, the
delineation of the construct of hope and its impact on evalua-
tion judgments, satisfaction processes and risk taking
(MacInnis and De Mello (2005). Parasuraman et al. (1985)
delineated the factors that drive customers’ perceptions of
service quality, such as the gaps between customers’ percep-
tions and marketers’ actions. Alba and Hutchinson (1987)
delineated customer expertise and investigated its impact on
a set of cognitive processes (e.g., cognitive effort, elaboration,
and memory).
No discussion of new business technology would be com-
plete without an examination of its impact on employment
(Huang and Rust 2018). Each new technology not only brings
hopes and dreams about its benefits, but also fear of job losses

1st wave surge of C2C content and platforms.

Service robots will be deployed in three
Tenet 1 Deployment subsequent waves, moving from simple
automation tasks to autonomous decision-
making and physical execution
2nd wave of consumers’ and tourism and
hospitality companies’ interactions (digital
frontline).
3rd wave of autonomous services (self-driving
transport, digital concierge)

Service robots require certain traits for
Acceptance them to be accepted when interacting with
Tenet 2
a human being (e.g. appearance,
functionality), which is crucial for their
adaptation to tourism and hospitality
Tourists/guests require certain traits and skills
(e.g. innovativeness, technology aversion, need
for control) in order to accept service robots in
a tourism and hospitality environment
The biggest challenge is the appropriate use of
levels of anthropomorphism, trust and rapport

Tourism and hospitality won’t suffer from

Societal The increased use of service robots in
Tenet 3 Consideration tourism and hospitality will change the
economy and labour markets, especially
for older and less educated employees.
automation as much as other industries, such
as transport and construction
The 2nd and 3rd automation wave will have a
much higher impact on employment and
preventive education shifts need to be
deployed asap to convert manual labourers to
soft skill ones

Fig. 2 Three tenets of service robots in tourism and hospitality


(IFR 2018; PwC 2018). Scholars identify two ways in which
technological innovations affect employment: displacement
and productivity effects. The former occurs when new tech-
nology replaces a human worker directly and carries out the
relevant task (Acemoglu and Autor 2011). The productivity
effect occurs when a new innovation creates new jobs or in-
creases demand for labour in innovation-related industries
(Acemoglu and Restrepo 2018).
Automation’s effects on employment are expected to arrive
in three waves as technology evolves (PwC 2018). These
waves have been identified as the algorithm wave (mid-
2020s), the augmentation wave (late-2020s) and the autono-
my wave (mid-2030s), with the dates of the projected impact
on an economy-wide scale given in parentheses. It should be
noted that jobs across all industries are at risk. Of these
projected at-risk jobs, it is estimated that automation will put
approximately 30% of service and sales workers’ jobs at risk.
This risk is projected to triple from 10% in 2027 to 30% in
2037 (PwC 2018).
The general belief is that service robots will lead to higher
unemployment and greater income inequality (Freeman 2016;
Nourbakhsh 2015), but others dispute this view (Fleming
2018; PwC 2018). In addition, service robots’ adoption is
expected to lead to median wages stagnating and the divide
between those who can benefit from this technology and those
who cannot, exacerbating (Maloney and Molina 2016). In the
US, productivity is at an all-time high, but the bottom 50% of
earners’ wages have stagnated, which seems to support the
previous expectation. The resulting income inequality re-
quires the unemployed to be offered relief in the form of
unemployment benefits and, potentially, income redistribu-
tion. The countries impacted by each wave will differ accord-
ing to their level of development and the industries on which
they rely (Maloney and Molina 2016; PwC 2018).
Researchers generally agree that those in low-skilled posi-
tions (e.g., in a hotel’s back-office) face the highest risk of
being replaced during wave one (Frey and Osborne 2017).
These are the jobs at which robots excel, due to their mechan-
ical and analytical intelligence. While some researchers sug-
gest there is no immediate danger of robots replacing intuitive
and empathetic roles (Huang and Rust 2018; Larivière et al.
2017), others disagree by, for example, highlighting the role
of voice bots in all aspects of society (Klaus and Zaichkowsky
2020). Employees in low-skilled, low-paying jobs frequently
lack education, receive little training, earn little, are not
empowered, and exhibit a lack of engagement and motivation
(Wirtz and Jerger 2016). Consequently, it makes sense from
both a business and a customer perspective to consider replac-
ing these human workers with service robots.
In the tourism and hospitality context, the impact of robotic
services on employment is well-documented (Ivanov et al.
2019; Ivanov and Webster 2017b; Ivanov et al. 2017). There
are also areas in which service robot deployment could have a
A. Manthiou et al.
positive influence on employment. Most researchers suggest
that human service providers focus on developing their soft
skills (Autor et al. 2003; Frey and Osborne 2017; Huang and
Rust 2018; Metzler et al. 2016; PwC 2018; Roongruangsee
et al. 2016), which service robots cannot yet provide, nor seem
capable of providing in the near future (Frey and Osborne
2017; Metzler et al. 2016; Rafaeli et al. 2017). It also seems
unlikely that service robots will fill positions regarded as cre-
ative or flexible in the foreseeable future. Before service ro-
bots can pose a serious threat to tourism and hospitality em-
ployment, they need to learn how to master social intelli-
gence’s key dimensions, which include, for example, under-
standing tourists’ emotions, negotiating between and with
them, persuading them, clarifying their behaviour and offering
emotional support (Frey and Osborne 2017; Metzler et al.
2016). These advancements can only be achieved if humans
assist and drive the relevant robot capabilities’ development.
Helping people develop the required capabilities in robots is
an employment-creating opportunity.
There are also other employment opportunities for humans
and robots (PwC 2018), with the most promising proposition
being pairing humans with robots (Larivière et al. 2017). For
example, service robots’ deployment in the hospitality and
tourism sector could reduce the number of employees, but
lead to an increased need for robotics and software engineers
(the “making” sector), for new services, and new recreation
and leisure activities (spillovers) (Vermeulen et al. 2018).
Furthermore, Wirtz and Zeithaml (2018) mention that the pro-
ductivity gains arising from the use of service robots and AI
will be competed away in reasonably efficient markets and
lead to an overall increase in consumer welfare. Increases in
productivity, wealth and income due to AI and robotics should
also stimulate the creation of new jobs (Arntz et al. 2016).
This positive outlook is based on historical trends
(Chiacchio et al. 2018), as previous technological innovation
eras, such as the Industrial Revolution, saw the displacement
effect dominating early on, but subsequently giving way to the
productivity effect. This perspective becomes less viable
when AI’s impact is compared with that of prior innovations.
Studies highlighting that the current rate at which jobs are
being automated, is outpacing society’s ability to find new
uses for recently unemployed people, support this statement.
Researchers speculate that AI, automation and robots could
lead to a substantial portion of the population experiencing
structurally high levels of unemployment (Turchin and
Denkenberger 2020) or even what the authors call “the end
of work” (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2017). This gives rise to
the uncomfortable question: Is further automation economi-
cally and socially sustainable?
When considering service robots’ potential impact on glob-
al tourism employment, certain factors, such as potential gov-
ernment regulations, make accurate projections nearly impos-
sible. Such regulations vary from country to country and are
Man vs machine: examining the three themes of service robotics in tourism and hospitality

Table 1 Three automation waves in tourism and hospitality

Wave Emphasis Impact on tourism and hospitality

Examples

Automation wave 1 Data analysis and simple digital tasks
(to early 2020s) algorithmic mainly becoming automated
Automation wave 2 Humans and machines work together
(to late 2020s) augmentation on repetitive tasks and exchange
information
Automation wave 3 Allows machines to make decisions and
(to mid-2030s) autonomy take physical action with little or no
human input
Booking systems, customer
data analysis
Interactions between service personnel
and customer/client/guest, e.g.,
automated check-in, check-out
Problem solving in real-time situation
and services, e.g., driverless transport
and virtual concierge

often subject to changes when one party replaces another in
government. Consequently, government policy may potential-
ly slow or accelerate such technologies’ development and de-
ployment (Cath 2018). This is evidenced, for example, by the
US showing higher levels of robots displacing human em-
ployees than EU countries do (Chiacchio et al. 2018).
Increasing automation will lead to either negative or posi-
tive social distortions. While automation will affect low-
skilled employees the most, its increase could also affect
others increases. Job descriptions and roles in companies
could become more demanding, since robots are best at
performing routine tasks, not unpredictable or emotional
work. From a positive perspective, AI and robots will empha-
sise employees’ distinguishing factor, namely their ability to
develop and apply soft skills. Consequently, the future might
see a team comprising a soft-skilled employee and a routine-
skilled robot serving customers’ needs with increased produc-
tivity. Companies’ employment and individuals’ employabil-
ity as well as societal distortions and changing demands will
have an impact on internationalisation and the global environ-
ment. This study delineates our findings regarding employ-
ment by highlighting that all three themes have an impact on
service robot research and society.
Implications
Theoretical implications
This study contributes theoretically in several ways. Firstly,
we operationalize MacInnis’s (2011) conceptual contribution
by applying it to derive insights into service robots in the
tourism and hospitality domain. Secondly, by exploring the
three themes deployment, acceptance and ethical consider-
ations, this study adds to the increasing research on robotic
adoption in hospitality and tourism. The theoretical contribu-
tions on how to use multiple disciplinary perspectives to shape
the future of tourism in the era of artificial intelligence are
expected to enrich knowledge production in this area.
Thirdly, this study identifies various future research opportu-
nities for an effective stream of service robot research in the
tourism and hospitality domain, thus elaborating in detail on
all three themes’ future research directions.
Practical implications
This research provides tourism and hospitality practitioners
with a roadmap to the ever-changing landscape that service
robots generate. Our first theme, deployment, allows tourism
and hospitality practitioners to push service offerings’ bound-
aries or, at worst, to remain competitive by understanding the
waves that service robots will experience before becoming
customer-ready. The rapid development of robotic services
in tourism and hospitality operations should be balanced with
strategies and policies that optimise the benefits and minimise
the risks in every aspect (Tussyadiah 2020). For example,
given service robots’ different impacts on productivity, some
suggestions for practitioners to keep up with this fast-moving
industry are: reskilling, jobs and organisational restructuring,
and redesigning (Ivanov et al. 2019; Lu et al. 2020).
The second theme, acceptance, could help tourism and
hospitality practitioners understand the features that service
robots require for consumer adoption and the factors that
should be best avoided. From a managerial point of view,
service robots can: increase productivity, improve work effi-
ciency, save costs, support tourists, make organisational deci-
sions more efficiently, increase safety and security, and create
a more flexible workplace for both employees and intelligent
systems (Tussyadiah 2020). Managers need to understand
how customers evaluate and respond to service robots’ inter-
actions (Mende et al. 2019) by paying attention to the tourism
and hospitality servicescape. The servicescape is the central
interaction space for tourists, robots and employees, and re-
quires adjustments to ensure that all three groups co-create the
ideal tourism experiences (De Keyser et al. 2020).
The third and final theme, societal considerations, in-
forms managers of the societal and ethical issues they
will have to confront when deploying service robots.

Table 2 Future research directions regarding theme 1 - deployment
Theoretical proposition
The distinct advantages of robot-delivered ser- What kind of training does front-line staff need in
vices in the tourism and hospitality industry
over people-delivered services with respect to
the service delivery’s consistency and the
training required.
The distinct advantages of a human-delivered
service over that of robots in the tourism and
hospitality context.
Service robots provide innovative development Will the government provide the robotics industry
opportunities for tourism and hospitality.
Service robots are unlikely to
be self-determined in the near future.
A. Manthiou et al.
Research directions References
Bishop (2006); Wirtz et al. (2018)
order to be competent and competitive in the
hospitality and tourism industry? Will service
robots’ designs be sufficiently diverse to pre-
vent customer boredom?
How can tourism service be fully automated? Huang and Rust (2018); Lu et al. (2020)
How can machines enhance human service
providers? How can humans and/or machines
be connected to provide collective intelli-
gence? Which tasks require which intelligence
composition and which combination of HI and
AI? Which services require which intelligence
composition and which combination of HI and
AI? Which strategic emphases require which
intelligence composition and which combina-
tion
of HI and AI?
Given that third-party vendors will provide most Bilgihan et al. (2011); Den Hertog et al. (2010)
of service robots’ software and hardware, how
can tourism and hospitality organizations build
a competitive edge by means of their knowl-
edge base, knowledge organization and appli-
cation? What will the economics of robot and
AI vendors as well as of deploying organiza-
tions be like?
Which additional dimensions could be critical for Frey and Osborne (2017); Lu et al. (2020)
an effective service robot design in the tourism
and hospitality industry (e.g., the role of digital
density and physical complexity), and should
they be included in sRAM?
How can training and retraining in the tourism Autor et al. (2003); Goos and Manning (2007);
and hospitality be provided? How can Rafaeli et al. (2017); Roongruangsee et al.
employers ensure that these are adequate? (2016); Wirtz et al. (2018)
These questions are of particular importance
when considering low-skilled and
low-educated employees in the tourism and
hospitality industry.
Kuo, Chen, and Tseng, (2017);
with strategic support? How can technology Ivanof et al. (2019)
development be supported, such as the
commercialization, the system integration
capability and the robotics production’s supply
chain? How will the talent of manufacturers be
developed, and what, if any, staff training
would be needed? What would be the return on
investment (ROI) of service robot development
in the hospitality and tourism sector?
How will the role of “large armies” of service Belk (2017); Roongruangsee et al. (2016)
employees be reduced to build a competitive
advantage? Will this result in a smaller group
of employees becoming even more important
regarding the development of the tourism
industry’s competitive advantage? Will other
factors become more important with regard to
developing a competitive edge?
If so, which ones?
How should service robots be designed in order to Manyika et al. (2013); Manyika et al. (2017);
meet tourists’ needs? What kind of social, Wirtz et al. (2018); Lu, Cai, and Gursoy,
emotional and relational features should be (2019); Chan and Tung, (2019); Ivanov,
included in tourism service robots? How can Webster, and Garenko (2018)
service robots reach high levels of tourist
acceptance and adoption? Will tourists’
Man vs machine: examining the three themes of service robotics in tourism and hospitality

Table 2 (continued)

Theoretical proposition Research directions References

acceptance of service robots vary across

Service robots are likely to become
a commodity rather than a key source
of competitive advantage.
Competitive advantage factors will come
from business model innovation.
cultures? Will it depend on tourists’ age,
gender and prior experience?
In general, how, given robotics’ enhanced
capabilities, will organizations and customers’
technology adoption change? Given
consumers’ aversion to algorithms, what will
determine their acceptance of robots for
complex cognitive-analytical tasks?
In other words, how can algorithm
aversion be mitigated?
What are typical tourism business attributes that Wirtz et al. (2018); Lu et al. (2020)
will influence tourists’ level of acceptance of
service robots?
How can service robots be effectively integrated Andreassen et al. (2018); Edvardsson et al.
into the tourism and hospitality servicescape? (2018); Wirtz et al. (2018); Ivanof et al. (2019)
How robotic automation will be integrated in the
tourism experience?

Managers should also consider robotic services’ socio-
economic impacts on the tourism and hospitality busi-
ness as well as on the local tourism destinations’ resi-
dents and communities. Practitioners should in turn ana-
lyse the productivity changes and the probability of in-
telligent machines replacing tourism and hospitality jobs
as well as this outcome’s potential consequences in terms
of wages, income distribution and wealth generation at
tourism destinations.
Robotic services could also lead to skills and knowledge
loss due to an overdependence on technology (Tussyadiah
2020; Lu et al. 2020). The hospitality and tourism industry’s
technological advance should be controllable and predictable
to avoid situations in which machines become smarter than
humans (Eden et al. 2012). Addressing the three identified
themes could help tourism and hospitality managers adapt
better to a rapidly changing market.
Further research
Although this paper offers a holistic perspective of ser-
vice robots in a tourism and hospitality setting by es-
tablishing three service robot research themes, many re-
search gaps and challenges remain across the service
robot and AI domain’s many levels. To stimulate further
reflection on service robots and AI, this study concludes
by outlining several research questions aligned with the
three themes (Table 1).
Theme 1 focuses on deployment and the emerging re-
search questions of the next wave of robots’ capabilities
regarding the tourism and hospitality industry. While
some authors fully support the idea of AI, automation
(e.g., Belk 2017; Huang and Rust 2018; Roongruangsee
et al. 2016) and their implementation (e.g., Bilgihan et al.
2011; Den Hertog et al. 2010), others are more concerned
with the impact of robot implementation in the tourism
and hospitality context (e.g., Autor et al. 2003; Goos
et al. 2014; Rafaeli et al. 2017; Roongruangsee et al.
2016). Table 2 provides an overview of the first theme’s
future research requirements.
The second theme is concerned with human–robot in-
teraction in the tourism and hospitality industry. Future
research needs to move from increasing robots’ cognitive,
emotional and social characteristics (e.g., Autor et al.
2003; Goos et al. 2014) and AI’s cost-efficient design
(e.g., Grandey 2003; Mesmer-Magnus et al. 2012; Wirtz
and Jerger 2016) to a complete acceptance model, which is
of the utmost importance in the tourism and hospitality
context (e.g., Giebelhausen et al. 2014; Heerink et al.
2010; Wirtz et al. 2018). Moreover, it is crucial for tourism
and hospitality research to examine the possible adoption
of the newest customer experience research frameworks to
test their applicability in the tourism and hospitality-AI
contexts. For example, we encourage researchers to test
the implications of the Touchpoint, Contexts, Qualities
(TCQ) customer experience framework (De Keyser et al.
2020) for the tourism and hospitality industry in the con-
text of AI and service robotics. Table 3 suggests the second
theme’s research requirements.
The third theme comprises the ethical question of intro-
ducing robots and AI to a human environment. In this
dimension, future research include security and privacy

Table 3 Future research directions regarding theme 2 - acceptance
Theoretical proposition
The distinct advantages of human delivered
service in tourism and hospitality over that
of robots.
Robots that mimic emotional expression
are perceived as more pleasant than those
that do not.
Service Robot Acceptance Model
in tourism (sRAM)
Role theory application in tourism
and hospitality
Service robots should possess human traits,
either in appearance or behaviour – almost
to the point of looking “too human.”
In general, robots are distrusted, but this can be What drives tourists’ trust in or distrust of and their
improved (up to a point) via
anthropomorphism.
Rapport is essential for certain services, which Which types of tourism and hospitality services and
a robot design can enhance. Collaborative
tasks also enhance rapport.
A. Manthiou et al.
Research directions References
Beyond service objects’ physical and virtual nature, what Grandey (2003); Mesmer-Magnus et al.
else drives whether physical or virtual robots are (2012); Wirtz and Jerger (2016);
preferred, and how can more cost-effective virtual Yu, and Ngan (2019)
robots (e.g., holographs rather than physical robots at
information counters) be designed to achieve greater
tourist acceptance? Which consumer and context fac-
tors determine service robots’ optimal level of hu-
manoid appearance and social skills? What deter-
mines tourists’ perceptions of service robots’
humanness, social interactivity and social presence?
Can a robotic service adequately replace the tourism
sector’s human face and dream-inspiring hospitality?
How will the cognitive and emotional-social complexity Autor et al. (2003);
dimensions’ influence service robot design? Goos and Manning (2007)
How will tourists react to the emotions Grandey (2003); Mesmer-Magnus et al.
that service robots display? (2012); Tielman et al. (2014);
Wirtz and Jerger (2016)
What are some alternative theoretical approaches to Giebelhausen et al. (2014); Heerink et al.
explain tourist acceptance and satisfaction with (2010); Wirtz et al. (2018); Tung and
robotic services? To what extent are tourists willing to Law (2017); Tussyadiah et al. (2020)
interact with robots during their holidays?
The human-robot interactions (HRI) should be analysed
by taking three different types of robotic agents into
account: copresent, telepresent and virtual ones.
What will determine role congruence in service robot Solomon et al. (1985)
encounters? What will be tourists’ role and that of the
service robots?
What role does individual tourist characteristics (e.g., the Breazeal (2003);
need for control, technology anxiety and situational Tussyadiah and Park (2018)
involvement) play? What is the perceived optimal
trade-off between efficiency and humanity for tour-
ists?
How do service robots’ design characteristics affect Mori (1970); Tinwell et al. (2011);
tourists’ reactions? For instance, how do tourists Mende et al. (2019)
perceive a male or female-looking robot?
Gray and Wegner (2012);
affection for or disaffection with service robots? Tussyadiah and Park (2018)
How can and should service robots be designed to allow Doney and Cannon (1997); Lu et al. (2020)
tourists to perceive them as being “on their side,” in
order to empower customers, to allow (calculated)
rule-bending, to manage exceptions and to handle
service recoveries?
Wirtz et al. (2018)
tourist segments require rapport with a robot?
How can the relationship between a service robot and Lee et al. (2012); Seo et al. (2018);
tourists be shaped to be a successful interaction Wilson et al. (2017); Lu et al. (2020)
between a service employee and tourists?
Service employee-robot teams can deliver highly emo- Lee et al. (2012); Seo et al. (2018)
tional and cognitive service tasks. How can service
robots be effectively integrated into such teams? What
are the drivers of such teams’ success and failure?
Which dimensions determine
employee and tourist acceptance of such service de-
livery systems?
Man vs machine: examining the three themes of service robotics in tourism and hospitality
Table 4 Future research directions regarding theme 3 – societal consideration
Theoretical proposition
Service robots present privacy and security concerns that How could consumer privacy be guarded and privacy
human representatives do not usually do.
Service robots could dehumanize aspects of care that are How would tourists perceive the vacation experience if
important for the tourism and hospitality sector.
Service robots could lead to higher employee turnover. Which working characteristics could moderate the
Service robots are predicted to replace their human
counterparts primarily in low-intelligence/task-level
jobs. Jobs requiring soft skills (e.g., social
intelligence, creativity and flexibility) are unlikely to
see robot replacement in the near future.
Employment forecasting
Employment polarization
concerns (e.g., Calo 2012), dehumanisation aspects (e.g.,
Delvaux 2017; Sharkey and Sharkey 2012; Veruggio et al.
2016) and societal distortions (e.g., Decker et al. 2017;
Frey and Osborne 2017; Huang and Rust 2018; Larivière
et al. 2017) caused by the ever increasing use of service
robots in the tourism and hospitality domain. Table 4 lists
the open research questions in this field.
Research directions References
Calo (2012); Tussyadiah, Miller,
concerns mitigated, given customers’ constant (2019)
observation? For instance, is the application of robotics
and AI-powered virtual agents providing agency and
surveillance cues in hotel rooms a privacy issue for
tourists? Further, if so, does this also apply to the per-
vasive capturing of customer data and service robots’
connectedness to large databases, including CRM sys-
tems?
Veruggio et al. (2016);
robots, without human intervention, mainly deliver Tussyadiah et al. (2020)
services?
What impact would service robots have on travellers with Cheung, Tsang, Wong, (2017)
disabilities?
Would service robots’ gender impact male and female Riek and Howard (2014);
tourists? Would service robots be able to convey Tussyadiah et al. (2020)
human feelings towards them?
Li, Ye, & Bonn, (2019)
relationship between the use of robotics and employee
turnover intention in the hospitality and tourism sector?
How could we ensure that low-skilled employees in the Frey and Osborne (2017); Huang
tourism and hospitality industry will specifically be and Rust (2018); Larivière
offered sufficient (re)training opportunities? et al. (2017); PwC (2018)
How could governments equip current and future Huang and Rust (2018); Lu et al.
generations of employees with valuable skills that the (2020)
use of service robots cannot make redundant? Since it is
unlikely that all low-skilled service workers could be
up-skilled or re-skilled, what will happen to those
whose skills are no longer in demand and who cannot
acquire new ones?
How could equitable access to robot technology be Maloney and Molina (2016);
achieved to ensure that no parts of society and the world Ivanof et al. (2019)
economy are left behind?
How could or should the wealth that robots, AI and Mitchell and Brynjolfsson (2017)
automation create be shared?
How could tourism destinations in the development stage Maloney and Molina (2016);
improve their hospitality resources and simultaneously
become part of a service robot-driven new world?
How should tourism and hospitality education be revised Maloney and Molina (2016);
to match a robot-driven industry? How should taxation PwC (2018); Ivanof et al.
of the tourism and hospitality industry be re-evaluated? (2019)
Will robot manufacturers create monopolies or Arntz et al. (2016); IFR (2018);
oligopolies which will influence the tourism and PwC (2018); Ivanof et al.
hospitality businesses? What kind of legislation will be (2019)
needed to restrict such issues?
References
Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies:
Implications for employment and earnings. In D. Card & O.
Ashenfelter (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics (pp. 1043–
1171). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02410-5.

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2017). Robots and jobs: Evidence from
US labor markets. Retrieved February 9, 2019, from https://www.
nber.org/papers/w23285.pdf.
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2018). The race between man and ma-
chine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and
employment. American Economic Review, 108(6), 1488–1542.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160696.
Adams, B., Breazeal, C., Brooks, R. A., & Scassellati, B. (2000).
Humanoid robots: A new kind of tool. IEEE Intelligent Systems
and their Applications, 15(4), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/5254.
867909.
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer ex-
pertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454. https://doi.
org/10.1086/209080.
Allen, C., Varner, G., & Zinser, J. (2000). Prolegomena to any future
artificial moral agent. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical
Artificial Intelligence, 12(3), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09528130050111428.
Arntz, M., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2016). The risk of automation for
jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. In OECD Social,
Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 189. Paris: OECD
publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-en .
Asimov, I. (1942). Runaround. Astounding Science Fiction, 29(1), 94–
103.
Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of
recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333. https://doi.
org/10.1162/003355303322552801.
Barnes, D. C., Ponder, N., & Hopkins, C. D. (2015). The impact of
perceived customer delight on the frontline employee. Journal of
Business Research, 68(2), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2014.06.005.
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement
instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, per-
ceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International
Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12369-008-0001-3.
Beaujean, M., Davidson, J., & Madge, S. (2006). The ‘moment of truth’
in customer service. The McKinsey Quarterly, 62(1).
Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A. (2010).
Understanding robot acceptance. In Technology GIo. Atlanta, GA:
School of Psychology, human factors and aging laboratory.
Belk, R. (2017). Consumers in an age of autonomous and semi-
autonomous machines. In J. J. Sherry & E. Fischer (Eds.),
Currents in consumer culture theory (pp. 5–32). London:
Routledge.
Bengtsson, B., Burgoon, J. K., Cederberg, C., Bonito, J., & Lundeberg,
M. (1999). The impact of anthropomorphic interfaces on influence
understanding, and credibility. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual
Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. https://doi.
org/10.1109/HICSS.1999.772736.
Bharadwaj, S. G., Varadarajan, P. R., & Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable
competitive advantage in service industries: A conceptual model
and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 83–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700407.
Bilgihan, A., Okumus, F., Nusair, K., & Joon-Wuk Kwun, D. (2011).
Information technology applications and competitive advantage in
hotel companies. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology,
2(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/17579881111154245.
Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. New
York, NY: Springer.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation.
Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1596/
1020-797X_12_1_29.
Brown, S. W., Webster, F. E., Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., Wilkie, W. L.,
Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S., et al. (2005). Marketing renaissance:
A. Manthiou et al.
Opportunities and imperatives for improving marketing thought,
practice, and infrastructure. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 1–25
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30166549.
Buhalis, D., Harwood, T., Bogicevic, V., Viglia, G., Beldona, S., &
Hofacker, C. (2019). Technological disruptions in services:
Lessons from tourism and hospitality. Journal of Service
Management, 30(4), 484–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-12-
2018-0398.
Čaić, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Mahr, D. (2018). Service robots:
Value co-creation and co-destruction in elderly care networks.
Journal of Service Management, 29(2), 178–205. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JOSM-07-2017-0179.
Calo, M. R. (2012). Robots and privacy. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A.
Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics-the ethical and social implications of
robotics (pp. 187–201). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Campbell, K. S., Davis, L., & Skinner, L. (2006). Rapport management
during the exploration phase of the salesperson–customer relation-
ship. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26(4), 359–
370. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134260403.
Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and tech-
nical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical transactions.
Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences,
376(2133). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0080.
Chan, A. P. H., & Tung, V. W. S. (2019). Examining the effects of robotic
service on brand experience: The moderating role of hotel segment.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(4), 458–468. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1568953.
Chenet, P., Tynan, C., & Money, A. (1999). Service performance gap:
Re-evaluation and redevelopment. Journal of Business Research,
46(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00017-4.
Chiacchio, F., Petropoulos, G., & Pichler, D. (2018). The impact of in-
dustrial robots on EU employment and wages: A local labour market
approach. Bruegel Working Paper Issue 02/18. Retrieved March 11,
2020, from http://bruegel.org/2018/04/the-impact-of-industrial-
robots-on-eu-employment-and-wages-a-local-labour-market-
approach/.
Chong, M. (2007). The role of internal communication and training in
infusing corporate values and delivering brand promise: Singapore
airlines' experience. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 201–212.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550051.
Cunningham, P. H. (1999). Ethics of advertising: Oxymoron or good
business practice? In J. P. Jones (Ed.), He advertising business:
Operations, creativity, media planning, integrated communications
(pp. 499–515). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–
340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
De Keyser, A., Lemon, K. N., Klaus, P., & Keiningham, T. L. (2015). A
framework for understanding and managing the customer experi-
ence. Marketing Science Institute working paper series. Report no.
15–121.
De Keyser, A., Verleye, K., Lemon, K., Keiningham, T., & Klaus, P.
(2020). Moving the customer experience field forward: Introducing
the touchpoints, context, qualities (TCQ) nomenclature. Journal of
Service Research., 109467052092839. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670520928390.
Decker, M., Fischer, M., & Ott, I. (2017). Service robotics and human
labor: First technology assessment of substitution and cooperation.
Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 87, 348–354. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.robot.2016.09.017.
Delvaux, M. (2017). Report with recommendations to the commission on
civil law rules on robotics. Retrieved January 9, 2020, from http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0005_EN.
html?redirect.
Den Hertog, P., van der Aa, W., & de Jong, M. W. (2010). Capabilities
for managing service innovation: Towards a conceptual framework.
Man vs machine: examining the three themes of service robotics in tourism and hospitality
Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 490–514. https://doi.org/10.
1108/09564231011066123.
Denning, T., Matuszek, C., Koscher, K., Smith, J. R., & Kohno, T.
(2009). A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future house-
hold robots: Attacks and lessons. Proceedings of the 11th interna-
tional Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Orlando, Florida:
USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1620545.1620564.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of
trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–
51. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100203.
Draude, C. (2011). Intermediaries: Reflections on virtual humans, gender,
and the Uncanny Valley. AI& Soiety., 26(4), 319–327. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00146-010-0312-4.
Drumwright, M. E. (1994). Socially responsible organizational buying:
Environmental concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. Journal
of Marketing, 58(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224299405800301.
Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics
and Autonomous Systems, 42(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0921-8890(02)00374-3.
Eden, A. H., Steinhart, E., Pearce, D., & Moor, J. H. (2012). Singularity
hypotheses: An overview. In A. Eden, J. Moor, J. Søraker, & E.
Steinhart (Eds.), Singularity hypotheses. Berlin, Heidelberg: The
Frontiers Collection. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
32560-1_1.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When we
need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism.
Social Cognition, 26(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.
2008.26.2.143.
Fleming, P. (2018). Robots and organization studies: Why robots might
not want to steal your job. Organization Studies, 40(1), 23–38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618765568.
Freeman, R. (2016). Who owns the robots rules the world. Retrieved
April 22, 2020, from https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/who-
owns-the-robots-rules-the-world.
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How
susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2016.08.019.
Gaglio, B., Nelson, C. C., & King, D. (2006). The role of rapport:
Lessons learned from conducting research in a primary care setting.
Qualitative Health Research, 16(5), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1049732306286695.
Giebelhausen, M., Robinson, S. G., Sirianni, N. J., & Brady, M. K.
(2014). Touch versus tech: When technology functions as a barrier
or a benefit to service encounters. Journal of Marketing, 78(4), 113–
124. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0056.
Giger, J., Davidhizar, R. E., Purnell, L., Harden, J. T., Phillips, J., &
Strickland, O. (2007). American academy of nursing expert panel
report: Developing cultural competence to eliminate health dispar-
ities in ethnic minorities and other vulnerable populations. Journal
of Transcultural Nursing, 18(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1043659606298618.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory
building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310758.
Goos, M., Manning, A., & Salomons, A. (2014). Explaining job polari-
zation: Routine-biased technological change and offshoring.
American Economic Review, 104(8), 2509–2526. https://doi.org/
10.1257/aer.104.8.2509.
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When "the show must go on": Surface acting and
deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated
service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96.
https://doi.org/10.5465/30040678.
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2012). Feeling robots and human zombies:
Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 125(1), 125–
130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007.
Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Holland, E. (2013). The Psychology of
Humanness. In S. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and
(De)Humanization. Nebraska symposium on motivation, vol 60
(pp. 25-51). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4614-6959-9_2.
Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2007). Manipulating perceived social presence
through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards online
shopping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(8),
689–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.018 .
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2008). The influence
of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older
people. Journal of Physical Agents. 2(2), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.
14198/JoPha.2008.2.2.05.
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2010). Assessing
acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults:
The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4),
361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5.
Henn na Hotel (2020) Brand concept. Retrieved January 9, 2020, from
https://www.h-n-h.jp/en/concept.
Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service.
Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1094670517752459.
Hubbard, F. P. (2014). Sophisticated robots: Balancing liability, regula-
tion, and innovation. Florida Law Review, 66(5), 1803–1872 http://
scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol66/iss5/1.
Hutchinson, J. (2015). Is this the future of room service? Robots deployed
to cater to hotel guests' needs... and they can even navigate the lifts.
Retrieved January 16, 2020, from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/
travel/travel_news/article-3187169/Is-future-room-service-Robots-
deployed-cater-hotel-guests-needs-navigate-lifts.html.
IFR. (2018). Robots and the workplace of the future. Retrieved March 20,
2020, from https://ifr.org/downloads/papers/IFR_Robots_and_the_
Workplace_of_the_Future_Positioning_Paper.pdf.
Iphofen, R., & Kritikos, M. (2019). Regulating artificial intelligence and
robotics: Ethics by design in a digital society. Contemporary Social
Science, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2018.1563803.
Ivanov, S. H., & Webster, C. (2017a). The robot as a consumer: A re-
search agenda. "Marketing: experience and perspectives"
Conference, University of Economics-Varna, Bulgaria. https://ssrn.
com/abstract=2960824.
Ivanov, S., & Webster, C. (2017b). Adoption of robots, artificial intelligence
and service automation by travel, tourism and hospitality companies – A
cost-benefit analysis. International Scientific Conference
“Contemporary tourism traditions and innovations”, 19–21 October
2017, Sofia University. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3007577.
Ivanov, S., Webster, C., & Berezina, K. (2017). Adoption of robots and
service automation by tourism and hospitality companies. Journal of
Tourism & Development, (27/28), 1501–1517. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2964308.
Ivanov, S., Gretzel, U., Berezina, K., Sigala, M., & Webster, C. (2019).
Progress on robotics in hospitality and tourism: A review of the
literature. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 10(4),
489–521. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-08-2018-0087.
Jaworski, B. J. (2011). On managerial relevance. Journal of Marketing,
75(4), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.211.
Jones, T. O., & Sasser, W. E. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect.
Harvard Business Review, 73, 88–99.
Kim, E. S., Berkovits, L. D., Bernier, E. P., Leyzberg, D., Shic, F., Paul,
R., & Scassellati, B. (2013). Social robots as embedded reinforcers
of social behavior in children with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 43(5), 1038–1049. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10803-012-1645-2.

Klaus, P., & Zaichkowsky, J. (2020). AI voice bots: A services marketing
research agenda. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(3), 389–398.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2019-0043.
Komiak, S. Y., & Benbasat, I. (2006). The effects of personalization and
familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS
Quarterly, 941–960. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148760.
Korchut, A., Szklener, S., Abdelnour, C., Tantinya, N., Hernández-
F a r i g o l a , J . , R i b es , J . C ., S k r o b a s , U . , Gr a b o w s k a -
Aleksandrowicz, K., Szczęśniak-Stańczyk, D., & Rejdak, K.
(2017). Challenges for service robots—Requirements of elderly
adults with cognitive impairments. Frontiers in Neurology, 8(228).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00228.
Kwak, S. S., Kim, Y., Kim, E., Shin, C., & Cho, K. (2013). What makes
people empathize with an emotional robot?: The impact of agency
and physical embodiment on human empathy for a robot. 2013
IEEE RO-MAN, Gyeongju, South Korea. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ROMAN.2013.6628441 .
Larivière, B., Bowen, D., Andreassen, T. W., Kunz, W., Sirianni, N. J.,
Voss, C., et al. (2017). “Service encounter 2.0”: An investigation
into the roles of technology, employees and customers. Journal of
Business Research, 79, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2017.03.008 .
Lee, M. K., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S., Rybski, P., Antanitis, J., & Savetsila,
S. (2012). Personalization in HRI: A longitudinal field experiment.
7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction, Boston, MA, pp. 319–326.
Lee, W. J., Kwag, S. I., & Ko, Y. D. (2020). Optimal capacity and
operation design of a robot logistics system for the hotel industry.
Tourism Management, 76, 103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2019.103971.
Leite, I., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2013). Social robots for long-term
interaction: A survey. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(2),
291–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y.
Lobschat, L., Mueller, B., Eggers, F., Brandimarte, L., Diefenbach, S.,
Kroschke, M., & Wirtz, J. (2019). Corporate digital responsibility.
Journal of Business Research.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2019.10.006.
Lu, V. N., Wirtz, J., Kunz, W., Paluch, S., Gruber, T., Martins, A., &
Patterson, P. (2020). Service robots, customers, and service em-
ployees: What can we learn from the academic literature and where
are the gaps? Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 30(3), 361-
391. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-04-2019-0088.
MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136.
MacInnis, D., & de Mello, G. E. (2005). The concept of hope and its
relevance to product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing,
69, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.1.1.55513.
Maklan, S., & Klaus, P. (2011). Customer experience: Are we measuring
the right things? International Journal of Market Research, 53(6),
771–772. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-53-6-771-792.
Maloney, W. F., & Molina, C. A. (2016). Are automation and trade
polarizing developing country labor markets, too? Washington,
DC: World Bank Group.https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-7922.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Bisson, P., & Marrs, A.
(2013). Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life,
business, and the global economy. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from
www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/
ourinsights/disruptive-technologies/.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Miremadi, M., Bughin, J., George, K., Willmott,
P., & Dewhurst, M. (2017). A Future that works: automation, em-
ployment, and productivity. Retrieved April 2, 2020, from https://
www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/
Digital%20Disruption/Harnessing%20automation%20for%20a%
20future%20that%20works/MGI-A-future-that-works_Full-report.
ashx.
A. Manthiou et al.
Marinova, D., de Ruyter, K., Huang, M.-H., Meuter, M. L., &
Challagalla, G. (2016). Getting smart: Learning from technology-
empowered frontline interactions. Journal of Service Research,
20(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516679273.
McKinsey & Co. (2017). McKinsey global institute jobs lost, jobs gained:
workforce transitions in a time of automation. Retrieved April 10,
2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/2017-in-
review/automation-and-the-future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-
workforce-transitions-in-a-time-of-automation.
McKinsey & Co. (2018). Notes from the AI frontier modelling the impact
of AI on the world economy. Retrieved from April 15, 2019, https://
www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/
Artificial%20Intelligence/Notes%20from%20the%20frontier%
20Modeling%20the%20impact%20of%20AI%20on%20the%
20world%20economy/MGI-Notes-from-the-AI-frontier-Modeling-
the-impact-of-AI-on-the-world-economy-September-2018.ashx.
Mele, C., Pels, J., & Storbacka, K. (2015). A holistic market conceptual-
ization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 100–
114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0383-8.
Mende, M., Scott, M. L., van Doorn, J., Grewal, D., & Shanks, I. (2019).
Service robots rising: How humanoid robots influence service ex-
periences and elicit compensatory consumer responses. Journal of
Marketing Research, 56, 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022243718822827.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., & Wax, A. (2012). Moving
emotional labor beyond surface and deep acting: A discordance–
congruence perspective. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1),
6–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611417746.
Metzler, T. A., Lewis, L. M., & Pope, L. C. (2016). Could robots become
authentic companions in nursing care? Nursing Philosophy, 17(1),
36–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12101 .
Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–25.
Mori, M., MacDorman, K., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley
[from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–
100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811.
Murphy, P. E., Laczniak, G. R., & Prothero, A. (2012). Ethics in market-
ing: International cases and perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Murphy, J., Hofacker, C., & Gretzel, U. (2017). Dawning of the age of robots
in hospitality and tourism: Challenges for teaching and research.
European Journal of Tourism Research, 15(2017), 104–111.
Nomura, T., & Kanda, T. (2016). Rapport–expectation with a robot scale.
International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(1), 21–30. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12369-015-0293-z.
Nourbakhsh, I. R. (2015). The coming robot dystopia – all too inhuman.
Foreign Affairs, 94(4), 23–28.
Pagallo, U. (2013). Robots in the cloud with privacy: A new threat to data
protection? Computer Law & Security Review, 29(5), 501–508.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2013.07.012.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual
model of service quality and its implications for future research.
Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224298504900403.
PwC. (2018). Will robots really steal our jobs? An international analysis
of the potential long term impact of automation. Retrieved October
3, 2019, from https://www.pwc.co.uk/economic-services/assets/
international-impact-of-automation-feb-2018.pdf.
Rafaeli, A., Altman, D., Gremler, D. D., Huang, M.-H., Grewal, D., Iyer,
B., Parasuraman, A., & de Ruyter, K. (2017). The future of frontline
research: Invited commentaries. Journal of Service Research, 20(1),
91–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516679275.
Riek, L., & Howard, D. (2014). A code of ethics for the human-robot
interaction profession. Proceedings of We Robot, 2014. https://ssrn.
com/abstract=2757805.
Riether, N., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., & Horstmann, G. (2012). Social facil-
itation with social robots? In Human–robot Interaction (HRI).
Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Man vs machine: examining the three themes of service robotics in tourism and hospitality
Human-Robot Interaction, Boston, MA, 2012. https://doi.org/10.
1145/2157689.2157697.
Robertson, J. (2010). Gendering humanoid robots: Robo-sexism in Japan.
Body & Society, 16(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1357034X10364767.
Roongruangsee, R., Patterson, P., & Ngo, L. V. (2016). Building client
psychological comfort through communication style in financial ad-
visory services. Proceedings of the 2016 Australian and New
Zealand Marketing Educators Conference, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch.
Royal Caribbean Press Center (2019). Shaking things up at sea: Royal
Caribbean's robot bartenders concoct cocktails. Retrieved 12 March,
2020, https://www.royalcaribbeanpresscenter.com/video/551/
shaking-things-up-at-sea-royal-caribbeans-robot-bartenders-
concoct-cocktails/.
Seo, S. H., Griffin, K., Young, J. E., Bunt, A., Prentice, S., & Loureiro-
Rodríguez, V. (2018). Investigating people’s rapport building and
hindering behaviors when working with a collaborative robot.
International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(1), 147–161. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0441-8.
Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2012). The rights and wrongs of robot care.
In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics-the ethical
and social implications of robotics (pp. 267–282). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Simon, M. (2018). The serious security problem looming over robotics.
Retrieved April 5, 2019, from https://www.wired.com/story/
security-robotics/.
Sohn, D., & Lee, B. (2005). Dimensions of interactivity: Differential
effects of social and psychological factors. Journal of Computear-
Mediated Communication, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2005.tb00254.x .
Tielman, M., Neerincx, M., Meyer, J.-J., & Looije, R. (2014). Adaptive
emotional expression in robot-child interaction. Proceedings of the
2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction, Bielefeld, Germany.
Tinwell, A., Grimshaw, M., & Williams, A. (2011). The uncanny wall.
International Journal of Arts and Technology, 4(3), 326–341.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2011.041485 .
Tung, V. W. S., & Law, R. (2017). The potential for tourism and hospi-
tality experience research in human-robot interactions. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(10), 2498–
2513. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0520 .
Turchin, A., & Denkenberger, D. (2020). Classification of global cata-
strophic risks connected with artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY,
35, 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0845-5 .
Tussyadiah, I. (2020). A review of research into automation in tourism:
Launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on arti-
ficial intelligence and robotics in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102883 .
Tussyadiah, I., & Miller, G. (2019). Nudged by a robot: Responses to
agency and feedback. Annals of Tourism Research, 78. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102752 .
Tussyadiah, I. P., & Park, S. (2018). Consumer evaluation of hotel service
robots. In B. Stangl, & J. Pesonen (Eds.), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2018 (pp. 308–320).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72923-7_24.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Zach, F. J., & Wang, J. (2020). Do travelers trust
intelligent service robots? Annals of Tourism Research, 81,
102886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102886.
Van der Loos, H. M., Reinkensmeyer, D. J., & Guglielmelli, E. (2016).
Rehabilitation and health care robotics. In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib
(Eds.), Springer Handbook of Robotics (pp. 1685–1728): Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_64 .
Van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S. M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A. L.,
Grewal, D., & Petersen, J. A. (2017). Domo arigato Mr. roboto:
Emergence of automated social presence in organizational frontlines
and customers’ service experiences. Journal of Service Research,
20(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516679272.
Veloso, M., Biswas, J., Coltin, B., Rosenthal, S., Kollar, T., Mericli, C.,
Samadi, M., Brandão, S., & Ventura, R. (2012). CoBots:
Collaborative robots servicing multi-floor buildings. IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
Vilamoura, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2012.6386300.
Vermeulen, B., Kesselhut, J., Pyka, A., & Saviotti, P. (2018). The impact
of automation on employment: Just the usual structural change?
Sustainability, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051661.
Veruggio, G., & Abney, K. (2012). Roboethics: The applied ethics for a
new science. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot
ethics-the ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 347–
363). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Veruggio, G., Operto, F., & Bekey, G. (2016). Roboethics: Social and ethical
implications. In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer Handbook of
Robotics (pp. 2135–2160). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.
Wagner, G. (2018). Robot Liability. In: V. Mak, E. Tjong Tjin Tai, & A.
Berlee (Eds.), Research Handbook in Data Science and Law (pp.
55–82). Elgar Publishing, Cheltenhame. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.3198764.
Wainer, J., Feil-Seifer, D., Shell, D. A., & Mataric, M. J. (2007).
Embodiment and human-robot interaction: a task-based perspective.
RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot
and Human Interactive Communication, Jeju, 2007, pp. 872–877.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415207.
Wasielewski, P. L. (1985). The emotional basis of charisma. Symbolic
Interaction, 8(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1985.8.2.207.
Wilson, J. R., Lee, N. Y., Saechao, A., Hershenson, S., Scheutz, M., &
Tickle-Degnen, L. (2017). Hand gestures and verbal acknowledgments
improve human-robot rapport. In: A. Kheddar, E. Yoshida, S.S. Gee, J.-
J. Cabibihan, F. Eyssel, & H. He (Eds.), Social Robotics. ICSR 2017.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10652. Springer, Cham. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70022-9_33.
Wirtz, J., & Jerger, C. (2016). Managing service employees: Literature
review, expert opinions, and research directions. The Service
Industries Journal, 36(15–16), 757–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02642069.2016.1278432.
Wirtz, J., & Zeithaml, V. (2018). Cost-effective service excellence.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 59–80.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0560-7.
Wirtz, J., Patterson, P. G., Kunz, W. H., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S.,
& Martins, A. (2018). Brave new world: Service robots in the front-
line. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907–931. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2018-0119.
Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P. (2013). Using
grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature.
European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45–55. https://
doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51.
Wuenderlich, N. V., & Paluch, S. (2017). A Nice and friendly chat with a
bot: user perceptions of AI-based service agents. Proceedings of the
38th International Conference on Information Systems, 2017.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/ServiceScience/Presentations/11/.
Zheng, K., Glas, D. F., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2013).
Designing and implementing a human–robot team for social inter-
actions. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics:
Systems, 43(4), 843–859. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2012.
2216870.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.