Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

The role of the human-robot interaction in consumers’ acceptance of

humanoid retail service robots
Christina Soyoung Song a, *, Youn-Kyung Kim b
a
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Fashion Design and Merchandising, Illinois State University, 126A Turner Hall, Campus Box 5060 Normal, IL 61790-
5060, USA
b
Department of Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism Management, University of Tennessee, 110 Jessie Harris Building, 1215 W. Cumberland Avenue, Knoxville, TN 37996-
1900, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Retail Service Robot (RSR) is a humanoid robot that uses AI service automation to provide customized
Artificial intelligence shopping assistance. Based upon Computers-Are-Social-Actors theory, this study investigates: (1) The way RSRs’
CASA usefulness, social capability, and appearance facilitate Human-Robot Interaction (HRI); (2) whether anxiety
Human-robot interaction
toward robots inhibits the relations between RSRs’ facilitators and HRI, and (3) whether HRI affects anticipated
Humanoid
Service robot
service quality and ultimately the acceptance of RSRs. The study incorporates interviews, video clip stimuli, and
Technology acceptance empirical data collection (n = 1362) in fashion, technology, and food-service. The results reveal that RSRs’ fa­
cilitators such as usefulness, social capability, and appearance influence attitudes toward HRI positively, which
in turn, predict anticipation of better service quality and greater acceptance of RSRs, and demonstrate the
moderating role of anxiety toward robots between RSRs’ facilitators and attitudes toward HRI. The findings
provide theoretical and practical implications for the adoption of RSRs and development of effective HRI.

1. Introduction retail industries. These applications increase productivity via enhanced

The Retail Service Robot (RSR) is an emerging robotic technology
that employs Artificial Intelligence (AI) to provide automated in-store
customer service (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2021; Murphy et al., 2019;
Song, 2017). RSRs can help consumers navigate a store to find products
and information in real-time, receive personalized product advice, order
online for pickup and home delivery, and complete purchase trans­
actions (Mende et al., 2019; Riegger et al., 2021; Song & Kim, 2021).
One of the most dramatic innovations in the realm of service robots is
the emergence of humanoid robots that are built to resemble humans by
replicating human facial features and/or human-like musculoskeletal
morphology, such as the face, arms, and legs (Mende et al., 2019;
Ruijten et al., 2019; Song, 2017). Research has shown that robots
equipped with a human-like physical appearance and social capability
similar to humans increase users’ level of trust in, and acceptance of,
robot technology (Song & Kim, 2020; van Pinxteren et al., 2019).
Despite the recent economic crisis, AI-related robotic applications
continue to increase globally and create a competitive advantage for
human-AI collaboration, reduce labor costs, provide intrinsically
enjoyable retail experiences, and build an accurate inventory tracking
system through automation in the service sectors of retail, hospitality,
banking, healthcare, and education (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2021; Riegger
et al., 2021). Unlike other computer technologies, humanoid RSRs can
engage in complex interpersonal communications, mimic human feel­
ings, and detect consumers’ emotions (e.g., happiness, anger, irritation,
and satisfaction) via emotion-sensing facial recognition (Haenlein &
Kaplan, 2021; Murphy et al., 2019). Examples of humanoid RSRs
include SoftBank Robotics’ “Pepper” in mobile phone stores, Nescafé
coffee shops, Pizza Hut, HSBC bank, and Westfield Corp.’s shopping
malls, and “NAO” in Hilton hotels and healthcare centers (Makarius
et al., 2020; Riegger et al., 2021). Other notable examples are Hanson
Robotics’ “Sophia” and “Grace” in elderly healthcare services. In
particular, Grace is designed to be an assistant to frontline medical
professionals and is able to record a patient’s temperature and pulse and
provide support in delivering treatments (Hanson Robotics Ltd., 2021).
Indeed, retailers can take advantage of automated in-store service to

Abbreviations: RSR, Retail Service Robot; HRI, Human-Robot Interaction; CASA, Computers-Are-Social-Actors; AI, Artificial intelligence; CMC, Computer-Medi­
ated Communication.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ssong13@ilstu.edu (C.S. Song), ykim13@utk.edu (Y.-K. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.087
Received 28 February 2021; Received in revised form 27 March 2022; Accepted 30 March 2022
Available online 5 April 2022
0148-2963/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim
improve not only their productivity with fewer human staff with the
goal to achieve more rapid service processes and minimize human error
(Song & Kim, 2021), but also to encourage consumers to engage actively
with humanoid RSRs.
However, there are no clear maps with which to integrate humanoids
into dynamic frontline service environments (Makarius et al., 2020) that
can lead to satisfaction with the service RSRs provide (Song & Kim,
2021; Yueren et al., 2019). Human staff tend to make mistakes, flawed
decisions, and unethical choices, and face physical fatigue and
emotional and mental strain when they make decisions and perform
service tasks (Yueren et al., 2019), while they can engage in caring
communication, personalized service, and negotiation, and have a better
understanding of consumers than robots (Song & Kim, 2020). Recent
studies have shown that humanoids are more suitable than human staff
to perform intricate tasks that require greater accuracy and consistency
(i.e., no human errors), and most importantly, they mimic human social
interactions autonomously without emotional distress (Makarius et al.,
2020; Song, 2017; Yueren et al., 2019). Therefore, identifying such HRI
facilitating factors will contribute to a deeper understanding of the way
humanoids can be designed to increase consumers’ acceptance, create a
solution for interactive service automation in stores, integrate them
smoothly with retail frontlines, and thereby increase consumers’ satis­
faction with service in HRI.
Nonetheless, empirical investigation of humanoids’ effectiveness in
the retail service domains remains scarce (Brengman et al., 2021; Song,
2017; Song & Kim, 2020), and existing theories related to technology
acceptance suffer from a lack of applicability to humanoids (Fox &
Gambino, 2021). Thus, this study extends Computers-Are-Social-Actors
(CASA) theory (Nass & Moon, 2000) to the acceptance of humanoid
RSRs as a theoretical background, based upon its assumption that people
will treat humanoids unconsciously in the same ways they respond to
humans when they receive sufficient “humanness” cues the robots
manifest. In this context, we introduce the Human-Robot Interaction
(HRI), the psychology of the way humans interact with AI robots to
accomplish collaborative tasks (Mende et al., 2019; Riegger et al., 2021).
Guided by CASA, “beneficial functionality” (i.e., usefulness), and
“social interactivity” (i.e., social capability) are fundamental humanness
cues that facilitate interaction with technology. In addition to these
functional and social abilities, humanoid RSRs’ readily available
“physical appearance” is also a humanness cue that influences the way
users interact with them (Nass & Moon, 2000). Although Mori (2012)
described humanoids’ aesthetics as the “Uncanny Valley,” in that too
much human-likeness (e.g., Hanson Robotics’ Sophia) may elicit feelings
of eeriness after an optimum point of likeable human-like appearance,
humanoid RSRs used in current retail settings (e.g., Pepper) present a
natural and attractive appearance with visually appealing human-like
attributes (Brengman et al., 2021; Choi et al., 2020; Song & Kim,
2021). Our study is designed to determine whether such cues as useful
functions, social capability, and appearance facilitate users’ positive
interactions with humanoid robots.
On the other hand, some individuals fear negative effects of robots,
including job loss, dehumanization, privacy infringement, and mal­
functions that lead to harmful accidents (Makarius et al., 2020; Ruijten
et al., 2019). If so, will consumers’ anxiety about, and mistrust of, robots
inhibit the way they interact with humanoids? To address these issues
pertaining to the factors that facilitate and inhibit HRI, our study
developed a research model to test (1) the way humanoid RSRs’ use­
fulness, social capability, and appearance facilitate attitudes toward
HRI; (2) whether pre-existing “anxiety toward robots” inhibits the re­
lations between these facilitators and HRI, and (3) whether attitudes
affect anticipated service quality and ultimately, the intention to use the
robots. This study extends the theoretical application of the CASA
paradigm to humanoid RSRs and builds a robust acceptance model by
including both facilitators and inhibitors of HRI across three mainstream
retail settings, fashion, technology, and food-service.
490
Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503
2. Literature review
Although robots continue to advance their self-learning ability
through AI computing power, natural language processing, and com­
puter vision to replicate human decision-making and social abilities
(Song & Kim, 2021; Yueren et al., 2019), the differences between human
service and humanoid robot service lead to an important question: How
can we design and integrate humanoid RSRs into retail services suc­
cessfully and build humane relationships with robots? Answering such a
question is essential, as RSR scholars have indicated that using hu­
manoids successfully requires not only alleviating consumers’ anxiety
about, and distrust of, high-tech features, but determining the way
thriving technology can be transformed into an interactive service that
meets users’ basic human needs for convenience, social connection, an
aesthetically pleasing interaction, and security (Makarius et al., 2020;
Yueren et al., 2019).
2.1. Extension of Computers-Are-Social-Actors theory to humanoid robots
Nass et al. (1994) developed the CASA theory, which Nass and Moon
(2000) elaborated later, based upon the finding from their laboratory
experiments that computer users apply social rules to interactions with
computers subconsciously in much the way they do in human-to-human
interactions. In Nass and Moon’s (2000) study, computers’ character­
istics that resemble humans include “words for output,” “interactivity,”
and “the filling of roles traditionally filled by humans,” all of which
reflect computers’ ability to perform human tasks that meet functional
and social expectations because of potential “humanness” cues (p.
83–84). In the case of humanoid RSRs, humanness cues constitute (1)
their appearance, (2) the ability to have AI-infused social conversation,
and (3) the functional capacity to perform human service tasks (Murphy
et al., 2019; Song & Kim, 2020). As such, CASA theory is suited
particularly well for humanoid robots, in that people focus uncon­
sciously on “interaction” when humanness cues are present, which
thereby elicit affective responses in the human–computer interaction (i.
e., emotional interaction) (Fox & Gambino, 2021; Gambino et al., 2020;
Song & Kim, 2021).
While CASA has been adopted consistently in computer-mediated
communication (CMC) research (Fox & Gambino, 2021), a limited
number of humanoid robot studies has tested CASA claims. For example,
Eyssel and Hegel’s (2012) experiment demonstrated that people were
likely to apply gender stereotypes to humanoid robots based upon
gendered facial cues; a male robot was deemed “more agentic” and “less
communal” than a female robot. Kahn et al.’s (2012) study revealed that
children aged 9–15 considered a humanoid robot a social being with
intelligence and emotion. In a study of AI devices that serve as restaurant
waiters, Pelau et al. (2021) claimed that human characteristics of a
human-like AI device influence interaction quality and thus, users’
acceptance of the device.
2.2. Attitudes toward human-robot interaction
The robotic engineering discipline outlined Human-Robot Interac­
tion (HRI) originally as “… a field of study dedicated to understanding,
designing, and evaluating robotic systems for use by or with humans”
(Goodrich & Schultz, 2007, p. 204). In CASA theory (Nass & Moon,
2000), the rule of reciprocity is applied as the core human characteristic
in interaction with computers. Therefore, HRI becomes positive if a
computer provides sufficient positive humanness cues. In the humanoid
robots communication field, Fox and Gambino (2021) indicated that
HRI could be initiated unconsciously, as people naturally follow their
“social scripts,” defined as people’s pre-existing cognitive models of the
way they can communicate with others. CASA argued that technology’s
social and humanness cues can activate these social scripts (Nass &
Moon, 2000). However, research on HRI in the retail setting, although
limited, has focused on users’ general attitudes toward a robot rather
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503

than toward their “interaction” with it (Heerink, 2011; Kim et al., 2019).
Further, users’ attitudes toward HRI may vary depending upon the types
of robots and service settings in which they operate (Mende et al., 2019;
Song, 2017). These issues are illustrated in Table 1, which provides an
overview of recent empirical research on humanoid service robots and
HRI. Fig. 1 displays the examples of humanoid service robots (Awak­
ening Health Ltd, 2021; Hanson Robotics Ltd., 2021; RobotLAB Inc.,
2021; SoftBank Robotics, 2019).
A recent trend shows that consumers increasingly seek experiences
through interaction with new technologies such as AI (Chuah & Yu,
2021; Haenlein & Kaplan, 2021). Hence, creating meaningful “interac­
tion” between robots and consumers will offer retailers greater oppor­
tunities to meet a growing consumer need for such experiences (Appel
et al., 2020). This trend in experiences demonstrates the importance of
humanoid robots’ emotional aspect. In fact, it has been noted that
feelings serve as the foundation of users’ experience and promote the
cognitive process during an interaction (Chuah & Yu, 2021). Based upon
this notion, we incorporated users’ emotional reactions to “interaction
with a robot” in the construct of attitudes toward HRI. Thus, we delin­
eated the attitudes toward HRI as consumers’ emotional responses to
interaction with RSRs activated by humanness cues (Nomura et al.,
2008).
2.3. Facilitators of human-robot interaction
Drawing upon the CASA theory, we postulated that RSRs’ humanness
cues facilitate HRI. By reviewing the literature, we identified three hu­
manness cues that facilitate a positive HRI: usefulness, social capability,

Table 1
Empirical Research Overview: Humanoid Retail Service Robots (RSRs) and Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
Support Methods Humanoid robot Application/setting Themes and Related Findings

Brengman et al. Field experiment Pepper Airport chocolate store setting Humanoid service robots elicited greater interactions than tablet
(2021) vs. tablet kiosk kiosks in the frequency and duration of interaction with consumers.
Further, the robots increased in-store traffic and consumer attraction
and resulted in higher sales than tablet kiosks.
Chuah and Yu Instagram data Sophia Instagram user social media The emotional robots’ expressions of surprise and happiness tend to
(2021) setting create positive effects on potential consumers.
Tuomi et al. Qualitative study Pepper Hospitality/restaurant service The four layers of contextual, social, interactional, and psychological
(2021) setting determinants and extrinsic and intrinsic factors influenced the
adoption of humanoid service robots in hospitality service settings.
Lu et al. (2021) Experimental study Robotic servers with Restaurant setting Service robots’ human-like voice influenced service encounter
human-like appearance evaluation, revisit intentions, and word-of-mouth intentions
positively. Human-like language style influenced service encounter
evaluation positively.
Song and Kim Survey study Pepper Apparel store setting Consumers’ technological self-efficacy and fashion robot advisors’
(2020) knowledgeableness, human-likeness, and social intelligence were
critical dimensions that affected the adoption of robots in the retail
store environment.
Appel et al. Experimental study Using vignettes of Elderly healthcare service setting Humanoid robots’ capability to feel and experience tended to create
(2020) humanoid robots called and other contexts greater eeriness than did non-humanoid robots. The effects were
‘Ellix,’ ‘Emily,’ etc. attenuated when the robots operated in a nursing service setting.
Meyer et al. Qualitative study Retail service robots, Retail setting (shopping center, Essential aspects of frontline employees’ decisions to accept/resist
(2020) including Pepper grocery, fashion, electronics, service robots were classified into categories: (1) loss of status; (2)
humanoid robots. sporting goods sectors) tension; (3) commitment; (4) role incongruency, and (5) advocation.
Thus, the robots can be both a threat and support to employees.
Choi et al. Experimental study Humanoids (NAO) vs. non- Hotel service and restaurant Lack of feeling of warmth in humanoid robots elicited more
(2020) humanoid robots settings consumer dissatisfaction than did a non-humanoid robot. However,
humanoid robots can recover from a service failure via a sincere
apology and explanation, while for non-humanoid robots, human
intervention can be used to recover from a service failure.
Mende et al. Experimental study NAO and other types of Restaurant/dining, medical, and Interactions with humanoid service robots elicited both discomfort
(2019) Humanoid robots educational settings and compensatory consumption of food intake, which was
moderated by perceived social belonging, healthy food, and
mechanized appearance.
van Pinxteren Field experiment Pepper Public service setting (an open The relation between gaze cues and anthropomorphism was
et al. (2019) innovation campus) moderated by consumers’ interaction comfort, which influenced
their trust in robots. Trust then affected the level of enjoyment
positively, which in turn, increased consumers’ intention to use the
humanoid service robots.
Niemelä et al. Qualitative & Pepper Shopping mall retail setting Shopping mall robots (Pepper)’s properties of usefulness, and
(2019) Survey study entertainment and advanced dialogue capability were identified as
facilitating factors in consumers’ adoption of social robots in
shopping malls.
Heikkilä et al. Qualitative study Pepper Shopping mall retail setting Similar to practical human staff for customer guidance,
(2019) characteristics of multi-modal mall entertainment robots, such as (1)
estimating the distance to the store destination, (2) appropriate use
of landmarks, and (3) pointing gestures, tend to be important
capabilities of robots in a shopping mall.
Stock and Qualitative & NAO Frontline service (Qualitative) / Users of frontline service robots tend to form their expectations
Merkle Experimental study Hotel setting (Experiment) toward the robots based upon three comparison references: (1) their
(2017) ideal standard for a robot service; (2) their expectations of a human
frontline employee, and (3) their expectations of a self-service
technology.
Pinillos et al. Experimental study Sacarino Hotel service setting Navigation and interaction metrics were measured to refine the
(2016) robots’ performance and improve service robots’ operation in hotels.
In addition, guidelines for hardware and applications for hotel
service robots were provided.

491
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim
(a) Pepper (b) NAO
Fig. 1. Service Robots: Pepper, NAO, Sophia, and Grace. Note: Pepper (a), NAO (b) (Image courtesy of RobotLAB Inc. and SoftBank Robotics); Sophia (c) and Grace
(d) (Image courtesy of Hanson Robotics and Awakening Health).
and appearance.
2.3.1. Usefulness as a facilitator of HRI
Perceived usefulness refers to “… the degree to which a person be­
lieves that using a particular system would enhance his or her job per­
formance” (Davis, 1989, p. 320). In this study, a RSR’s usefulness
denotes a user’s perception of its performance with respect to shopping
efficiency, product knowledge, personalized product information, time-
saving, and convenience (Davis, 1989; Song & Kim, 2020). The scholarly
literature has shown consistently that when consumers perceive that a
product or service is useful, they are more likely to form positive atti­
tudes toward the product, particularly in the computer-mediated envi­
ronment (Davis, 1989; Mende et al., 2019; Riegger et al., 2021;
Venkatesh et al., 2003). In the context of a humanoid robot bellboy,
Pinillos et al. (2016) found that “usefulness” and “functionality” largely
determined its long-term evaluation in a set of services in hotels.
Niemelä et al. (2019) found further that a humanoid social robot’s
entertainment capability, as well as its usefulness, facilitated consumers’
adoption of the robot in a shopping mall.
Compared to other computer technologies, humanoid RSRs can
mimic human service-task performance with greater speed, processing
power and accuracy, and respond to consumers’ emotions (e.g., happi­
ness, anger, irritation, and satisfaction) via emotion-sensing facial
recognition in the in-store environment (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2021).
Therefore, people are likely to compare humanoid robots’ usefulness to
that of human staff, self-checkout, kiosks, and conversational agents,
such as Siri and Alexa (Brengman et al., 2021). Further, technological
advances in modern service automation continue to challenge the
definition of service, as consumers want such technology to free them
from tedious tasks, and seek functionalities that provide them with new
information, increase their enjoyment, and allow them to communicate
and focus on what matters (Yueren et al., 2019). Hence, consumers’
perceptions of a humanoid’s usefulness will continue to change. In this
respect, measuring the perceived usefulness of the current humanoid
RSRs is necessary, as it provides an underlying reason why people want
to interact with humanoid RSRs. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 1a. Consumers’ perception of a RSR’s usefulness influences
their attitudes toward HRI positively.
2.3.2. Social capability as a facilitator of HRI
We define social capability as robots’ social skills to engage in
interpersonal relations, such as having interactive communication,
being approachable, responding appropriately, and listening without
interrupting when the customer is talking (De Ruyter et al., 2005; Song
& Kim, 2020). Users who interact with socially intelligent robots
492
Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503
(c) Sophia (d) Grace
sometimes feel that the robots care about them and are reliable (Song &
Kim, 2020). Similarly, users tend to perceive humanoid robots as human
beings thought to be kind, polite, helpful, attractive, and even humorous
(Haenlein & Kaplan, 2021; Ruijten et al., 2019). These human-like and
social characteristics of a robot encourage users to interact with it (de
Graaf et al., 2015). Conversely, users who interact with a robot with a
low level of social capability often perceive that the interaction is
awkward, and thus do not trust or feel companionship with the robot
(Mende et al., 2019).
The literature supports the positive effect of humanoid robots’ social
capability. Tuomi et al.’s qualitative study (2021) found that factors in
Pepper robots’ interactions, such as their responsiveness, ability to
recognize user intent, tone of voice, and use of gestures during HRI,
influenced the adoption of humanoid robots in hospitality service set­
tings. Niemelä et al. (2019) also obtained a similar result with shopping
mall robots (i.e., Pepper), in that their capability to engage in advanced
dialogue was required to serve customers and collaborate with human
staff. Further, Brengman et al.’s (2021) field experiment demonstrated
that humanoids (i.e., Pepper) with social capability elicited 26 times
more interactions that lasted 50 percent longer than those with a tablet
kiosk in an airport chocolate store setting. Although store environments
and service types vary, consumers’ perceptions of a robot’s artificially
achievable social capability will influence the way they wish to interact
with it (Yueren et al., 2019). Even if a robot exhibits impressive social
skills in HRI, if a consumer believes that the artificial sociability is
deceptive, they are likely to express corresponding suspicion of the
interaction with the machine (Song & Kim, 2021). Based upon these
findings, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1b. Consumers’ perception of a RSR’s social capability in­
fluences their attitudes toward HRI positively.
2.3.3. Appearance as a facilitator of HRI
Consumers form their impressions about a robot quickly by assessing
its physical attractiveness, familiarity, and nonverbal actions (Beer
et al., 2011; Riegger et al., 2021). RSRs’ appearance varies from lifelike/
realistic humanoids (e.g., Hanson Robotics’ Sophia, AIA Insurance
company’s Nadine, and Henn-na hotel’s robotic receptionists), semi-
human-like robots (e.g., SoftBank Robotics’ Pepper and NAO, PAL Ro­
botics’ Reem, and Invento Robotics’ Mitra), to nearly mechanical-
looking robots (e.g., Lowe’s LoweBot, and Target’s Tally) (Xiao &
Kumar, 2019). People tend to anthropomorphize humanoid robots more
than mechanical non-humanoids, as they perceive them to be more able
to accomplish tasks assigned and elicit affective interactions (Lu et al.,
2021).
Because of the various types of robots used in past research, there
have been mixed findings associated with humanoids’ physical
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim
appearance. For example, van Pinxteren et al. (2019) demonstrated a
positive relation between perceived anthropomorphism (e.g., attractive
facial features) in Pepper robots and users’ trust that ultimately deter­
mined the emotional HRI and acceptance of the robots in public service
settings. Song and Kim (2020) demonstrated a similar result that the
attractiveness of Pepper sale robots influenced users’ adoption of the
robots positively. In contrast, Mende et al. (2019) found that interaction
with humanoid robots (i.e., NAO and other types of humanoids with
varying levels of human-likeness) increased consumer discomfort and
compensatory food intake in the restaurant context, reflecting Mori’s
Uncanny Valley (1970; 2012), in which robots’ strong human resem­
blance provokes users’ feelings of eeriness and discomfort. Appel et al.
(2020) also found that humanoid robots’ ability to feel and experience
fear, pleasure, and embarrassment elicited eeriness. In contrast, Yoga­
nathan et al. (2021) found that robots’ human-like appearance increased
users’ positive affect and belief in their competence compared to me­
chanical self-service machines.
While using robots with various appearances and human-likeness
has yielded contrasting results, some RSRs, such as Pepper (employed
in this study), have an appealing and human-like appearance (Nass &
Moon, 2000). To this end, this study repositions the “appearance” of
humanoid RSRs, and addresses both attractiveness and humanness
rather than focusing solely on the robots’ human-likeness property.
Indeed, robots’ physical appearance is a major “external social cue” that
determines consumers’ attitudes toward HRI and their relational bond
with the robots (Beer et al., 2011). Further, consumers’ favorable
perception of a robot’s appealing appearance tends to generate enjoy­
ment and a quality interaction with the robot in the service frontlines
(Song & Kim, 2020). Thus, we posit the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1c. Consumers’ perception of a RSR’s appearance influences
their attitudes toward HRI positively.
2.4. Anticipated service quality
As in the case of e-commerce, businesses’ success or failure with
RSRs begins with service quality (Lee & Lin, 2005; Song & Kim, 2021).
Anticipated service quality refers to consumers’ overall expectation of
future service delivery in a store environment (Lee & Lin, 2005; Song,
2017). Polegato and Bjerke (2019) defined consumer anticipation as “…
a subjective, forward-looking, consumer-centered, cognitive process,” or
an outlook determined by imagination and prediction of the future (p.
150). Similarly, the expectation of service quality takes a future-focused
stance in consumers’ cognitive evaluation of meeting their service
expectation in the use of robots (Polegato & Bjerke, 2019). Previous
studies have shown that attitudes toward new technologies tend to in­
fluence a user’s service expectation (Beer et al., 2011; Davis, 1989; Lee &
Lin, 2005); in the context of a service robot, a forecast of the robot’s
ability to deliver service quality is based upon the user’s expectation
(Choi et al., 2020; Song & Kim, 2021; Xiao & Kumar, 2019). As CASA
suggests (Nass & Moon, 2000; Nass et al., 1994), consumers expect
unconsciously to receive reciprocal service quality from humanoids and
some degree of service benefit comparable to the service human staff
provide.
Choi et al. (2020) argued that the lack of social perceptions of
warmth in humanoid robots elicited more consumer dissatisfaction with
service than a non-humanoid robot in hotel and restaurant settings.
However, the authors found that humanoid robots can recover from a
service failure via an apology with an explanation, and thus restore
consumers’ feeling of warmth (i.e., friendliness and helpfulness) toward
service satisfaction without human intervention. This empirical study is
the only one in the retail/service business literature that has demon­
strated a possible association between humanoids’ social warmth and
users’ service expectations. By expanding the warmth concept to HRI in
the retail setting, this research tested the relation between users’ atti­
tudes toward HRI and overall service expectancy toward humanoid
493
Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503
RSRs. Thus, we posit the following:
Hypothesis 2. Consumers’ attitudes toward HRI influence their antici­
pation of the service quality a RSR provides positively.
2.5. Retail service robot acceptance
This study used a measure of behavioral intention as a legitimate
substitute for humanoid RSR acceptance (Davis, 1989; Davis et al.,
1989; Song, 2017; Song & Kim, 2020). In the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM), Davis (1989) demonstrated that users’ actual use of new
technology depended upon their behavioral intentions to use an infor­
mation system, which measures the strength of one’s likelihood to use
the system. This is consistent with Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA), in which the intention is the “observable ac­
tion” that predicts the actual behavior. While the original TAM depicted
the link between behavioral intention and actual technology use based
upon their close relation (Turner et al., 2010), Gursoy et al.’s (2019)
study used intention/willingness to adopt AI devices as a reference
measure for the acceptance of AI-infused technology applications.
Accordingly, this study used a measure of behavioral intention as a
proxy for humanoid RSR technology acceptance.
In the service context, consumers’ anticipation of future service de­
livery likely influences their intention to use new technology (Murphy
et al., 2019; Song & Kim, 2021). For example, the results of Stock and
Merkle’s (2017) research indicated that users’ anticipated or imagined
service was a crucial factor of humanoid acceptance in frontline service
settings. Indeed, service quality is recognized as one of the strongest
predictors of consumer satisfaction with using service technology (Lee &
Lin, 2005; Polegato & Bjerke, 2019). Given the close relation between
expected service quality and behavioral intent to use a technology (Lee
& Lin, 2005; Song & Kim, 2021), we posit that consumers’ anticipation
of a RSR’s service quality will positively influence their intention to use
the RSR, as follows:
Hypothesis 3. Consumers’ anticipation of the service quality a RSR pro­
vides influences their acceptance of the RSR positively.
2.6. Anxiety toward robots
“Anxiety toward robots” is defined as a user’s pre-existing anxious
feeling that elicits uncertainty and discomfort about having a conver­
sation with a robot (Nomura et al., 2008; Song, 2017). Such apprehen­
sion can emerge in both real and imaginary HRI situations (e.g., after
viewing a video of robots) and develop from prior experiences and
media exposure. This type of anxiety is a significant cause of technology
avoidance (Celik & Yesilyurt, 2013; Makarius et al., 2020; Mende et al.,
2019). In the early stage of RSRs’ entry into retail business fields, con­
sumers were uncertain about the accuracy of robots’ performance,
communication skills, and personal information confidentiality. They
were concerned as well about the possibility that AI robots may fail to
complete specific tasks that would lead to serious accidents (e.g., a mall
security robot collides with a child or self-driving car and causes a
deadly accident) (Ho et al., 2020).
In HRI, Nomura et al. (2008) asserted that users’ feelings of anxiety,
insecurity, and unfamiliarity with a robot has adverse effects of reducing
their expectations of its functional performance and sociability and may
lead to undesirable attitudes toward interaction with robots. Niemelä
et al.’s qualitative study (2019) also identified potential problems and
risks for shopping mall humanoids attributable to consumers’ anxiety,
such as privacy and data security issues, reliable performance, and
physical safety concerns, eerie feelings because of their appearance, and
dysfunctional interactions, which had an adverse influence on the way
consumers perceived interacting socially with robots. Further, Meyer
et al.’s (2020) qualitative study of frontline workers revealed that the
employees’ anxiety was directed toward their substitution risk and un­
certainty about their future, which appeared to enhance their negative
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim
attitudes and rejection of integrating service robots. Apparently, when
consumers possess a higher level of anxiety toward robots, it negatively
affects their attitudes toward HRI (Celik & Yesilyurt, 2013; Nomura
et al., 2008). Conversely, when consumers possess a lower level of
anxiety toward robots, the relation between facilitators and attitudes
toward HRI can be more positive. Hence, we posit that consumers’ pre-
existing anxiety toward robots may attenuate the relation between three
facilitators of usefulness: social capability; appearance, and attitudes
toward HRI. Yet, the moderating effect of anxiety toward robots is still
underexplored in the extant literature, and has found mixed results oc­
casionally, in that robots with a humane appearance increase users’
positive affect and competence inferences compared to mechanical self-
service machines, despite the unwanted feeling of anxiety toward the
technology (Yoganathan et al., 2021). Therefore, this calls for a more
targeted analysis of its moderating effects.
Hypothesis 4. The effects of a RSR’s facilitating factors on consumers’
attitudes toward HRI are moderated by the level of their pre-existing anxiety
toward robots, such that the effects of consumers’ perceived usefulness (H4a),
social capability (H4b), and appearance (H4c) of a robot on their attitudes
toward HRI are weaker when their anxiety about the robot is higher rather
than lower.
3. Methods
We used multiple methodological strategies to test the hypotheses.
First, we conducted personal interviews to evaluate YouTube video
stimuli and potential facilitators and inhibitors of humanoid HRI. Then,
we created written scripts and corresponding video stimuli in three
product categories, fashion, technology (i.e., a mobile phone), and food-
service (i.e., a restaurant). We conducted content analyses of these
stimuli, refined them after a pretest, and used the final stimuli in an
online survey. Finally, we employed multigroup SEM analyses to test the
hypotheses.
3.1. Preliminary stimuli selection
In the preliminary video screening and search process, two re­
searchers in retail and consumer sciences at a major university in the
Southeastern United States selected three video clips from YouTube, one
for each of the three product categories (i.e., fashion, mobile technology,
and small kitchen appliances), as retail stores for these products are
using humanoid RSRs increasingly (Beer et al., 2011; Murphy et al.,
2019; Stock & Nguyen, 2019). The three videos were selected based
upon video quality, retail/service content compatibility, human-robot
interactivity, and dialogues. The video clips featured “Pepper,” a hu­
manoid robot with a human-like appearance and morphology. Rather
than using sophisticated robotic technologies that only a few people
have experienced or are likely to experience in the near future, this study
adopted Pepper (Fig. 1 (a) Pepper; https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=1fQ1uf-Obms) because it is used and publicized most frequently in
the retail and service industries (Mastercard Inc, 2021; RobotLAB Inc.,
2016; RobotLAB Inc., 2021; SoftBank Robotics, 2019; Tuomi et al.,
2021).
3.2. Personal interviews
To collect initial feedback on the preliminary RSR video clips and
facilitating and inhibiting factors of HRI, we conducted personal in­
terviews (n = 14) with 8 undergraduate students, 2 graduate students,
and 4 faculty members at the same university. After watching three
video clips from YouTube in the product categories above (i.e., fashion,
mobile technology, and small kitchen appliances), participants identi­
fied potential facilitators and inhibitors of HRI (e.g., factors that influ­
ence their decision to interact or not interact with the retail service robot
in the store). Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) phases of thematic
494
Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503
analyses, all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed to identify
reoccurring feedback and themes (i.e., explanatory/labeled factors).
Next, two researchers read the interview data, generated initial codes of
findings relevant to the past literature, and collated those codes into the
themes—key facilitators and an inhibitor of HRI. Finally, we assessed
inter-rater reliability (IRR) using a two-way mixed model, consistency,
average-measures of intra-class correlations (ICC) coefficient (McGraw
& Wong, 1996). The ICC was 0.87, greater than the 0.75 cutoff value for
the excellent reliability range, indicating that the coders had a high
degree of agreement (Cicchetti, 1994).
Through the interviews, we classified three key facilitators (useful­
ness, social capability, and appearance) and one inhibitor of HRI (anx­
iety toward robots) based upon each construct’s definition in the
literature section. Table 2 illustrates definitions of the key constructs,
sample quotes (i.e., example extracts), literature sources, and fre­
quencies (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The interviewees also provided feed­
back on the video clips’ audio and visual quality and human
interactivity with RSRs. Based upon their feedback, we changed the
original video clips and developed video stimuli, which are explained
next.
First, we wrote video scripts for the stimuli to articulate an interac­
tive conversation between consumers and a frontline humanoid robot.
To obtain a larger pool from which to select the final video stimuli, we
developed two versions of video scripts for each product category, for a
total of six new scripts, and then developed six corresponding video
stimuli. Second, we dropped small kitchen appliances because of po­
tential bias from the well-known brand indicated in the YouTube video
and replaced it with new video clips of restaurant food-service, which
reflected the recent application of humanoid RSRs as restaurant servers
(Murphy et al., 2019; Stock & Nguyen, 2019). Third, to make voice re­
cordings for the newly written scripts, we deleted all voices in the video
stimuli and re-recorded a conversation between a RSR and a customer
using two volunteer voice actors. Fourth, we removed background music
and noises from all video clips to avoid possible media effects. Fifth, we
inserted a written cover page (no narration) at the beginning of the
video clips. Finally, we removed the robot’s subjective dialogue, such as
expressing its judgments of products. With the changes above, a total of
six video stimuli in three product categories (two for each fashion,
mobile technology, and food-service category) were prepared for the
pretest.
3.3. Pretest
We conducted a pretest to select the final three video stimuli (one for
each category) for the main test from the six videos created after the
interviews. A jury of seven researchers in retailing and consumer sci­
ences evaluated their overall quality, human interactivity, and appro­
priateness on a 5-point rating scale (1 = bad, 5 = excellent). They also
provided comments about the video clips’ general content and format.
Among the six stimuli candidates, three video clips with the highest
ratings were selected: fashion (mean = 3.86), mobile technology (mean
= 3.71), and food/restaurant (mean = 3.57). Based upon the jury’s
suggestion, we added an introductory voice accompanied by subtitles
that provided information about the RSR—“a retail service robot is an
in-store customer service robot with artificial intelligence to help cus­
tomers in navigating a store, finding products and information, and
completing purchase transactions.” The calories and nutritional infor­
mation in the food-service category were revised to show more accurate
calorie counts per serving and the food’s nutrient content, such as grams
of fat, carbs, and protein. Further, the promotional content related to
any brands was eliminated. After introducing RSRs with subtitles (i.e.,
the definition of RSRs), 1.5 to 2 min of conversation took place between
a RSR and a customer with content that ranged from customer inquiries
to the RSR’s product recommendation (i.e., product information, price,
and real-time inventory updates) for all three product categories. Ap­
pendix A displays an example script (mobile technology) and two
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim
Table 2
Summary of personal interviews (n = 14).
Explanatory Factors/themes Sample Quotes (example
extracts)
Usefulness Efficiency and time-saving in
Definition: shopping
A user’s perception of a RSR’s “The number one characteristic
performance related to would be how efficient the robot
shopping efficiency, product was in helping. Robots should
knowledge, personalized be efficient in helping people
service, time-saving, and and get what they need in a
convenience of shopping. timely manner. The robots were
Sources: definitely useful for directions
Davis (1989); Bartneck et al. and guidance.”
(2008); Song & Kim (2021); Convenience (including fast
Beer et al. (2011); Song and info search/payment process)
Kim (2020) “If the store is busy and the
customers need immediate
attention, it would be beneficial
for them to talk to the robot and
get the immediate attention
versus trying to wait for the next
available employee.
Convenience would be a big
factor.”
Accurate product and
inventory information
“I would say knowledge of the
product is probably the most
important. And the robot should
have extensive product
knowledge. It will be helpful
especially for indecisive
shoppers … Having an extensive
brand knowledge is key.”
Reliable/computed
recommendations
“The robot should also have the
capabilities to piece together an
outfit and suggest different
accessories. I would want to use
a robot to get reliable
recommendations on a product
that I may be investing in.”
Easy in-store navigation
“I think it would be really
helpful for people who are just
coming in and looking for a
direction to go … It would be
nice to have the kind of patrol
the floors so customers could see
that there’s somebody available
to answer their questions.”
Social capability Social interactivity and
Definition:A user’s communicativeness
perception of a RSR’s social “I think Pepper was cool to see
ability, such as having that kind of interaction, being
interactive communication, able to respond to a different
being interpersonal and variety of questions. Not having
approachable, responding had a web of interactions with
appropriately. robots or technology that
Sources: nature, people can ask some
de Graaf et al. (2015); De bizarre questions. If it has a nice
Ruyter et al. (2005); Beer approach, then I would most
et al. (2011); Song (2017) definitely interact with it.”
Friendliness and
approachability
“I guess if it had the cool
features of making it more
approachable, I would probably
choose to use a Pepper robot.
The robot had a little bit of a
personality, which I thought
was really interesting. Pepper
seemed like she had personality.
It shouldn’t be rude, but should
just be regular.”
Table 2 (continued )
Explanatory Factors/themes
Coder 1 / 2
Frequency
Appearance
12 / 9 Definition:A user’s
perception of a RSR’s
physical attributes, such as
aesthetic attraction and
similar to human
characteristics in its
appearance.
Sources:
Mende et al. (2019); Lu et al.
(2021); Song and Kim
10 / 7 (2020); Choi et al. (2020)
11 / 9
Anxiety toward robots
Definition:A user’s pre-
existing anxious feeling that
brings uncertainty and
discomfort related to having
7/5 a conversation with a robot.
Sources:
Nomura et al. (2008); Song &
Kim (2020); Celik and
Yesilyurt (2013)
4/3
12 / 9
9/6
495
Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503
Sample Quotes (example Coder 1 / 2
extracts) Frequency
Attractiveness 7/6
“More people would be
intrigued by how it looked and
how it moved. I think Pepper
was cute, and I would want to
play with her. It was the
appearance and the
mannerisms.”
Human-like look and 6/4
movement
“Pepper robot is really cool how
it can move and looks human-
like, making the robot sound
more personable and less like a
robot. I feel like there’s just
something about like the
humanoid appearance that
makes you feel like it’s more
approachable.”
Innovative look and design 5/4
“I will definitely use the robot
because it looks innovative. I
really like innovation, and I
think it’s a really cool concept.
How innovative it was and the
cool features would make it
more approachable.”
Discomfort in using robots 8/9
“Robots are manufactured
without the morality and ethics
of sales. My personality and
anxiety have affected my social
interactions as well. If the robot
was really friendly trying to
have a conversation, it would
seem weird. I would feel
uncomfortable talking to a robot
since it’s not a real person.”
Discomfort in receiving a 9/6
robot’s opinion
“I wouldn’t go to a robot for an
opinion on how an outfit looks
on me since it can’t think
critically or carry a real
conversation. If the robots gave
their opinion, it wouldn’t be
that personalized.”
Distrust in a robot’s 9/5
performance
“It doesn’t seem as efficient as
talking to a person. Then it
would waste more time than it
would save. I don’t even think
that it is possible to build a trust
factor on what they recommend
for you.”
Risk of revealing financial/ 2/1
private information
“If a robot made me feel
uncomfortable or self-conscious
because it wanted to know more
information about me, then I
would not want to use it.”
Complexity of advanced 1/2
technology use
“If they have access to tutorials
on how to do prep and use the
robot, they can tell me exactly
what I need for it. So I think it
would just be more of a personal
preference in some cases.’
Feeling annoyed by robots 3/3
“I felt like interaction was really
slow, and some people may
have already been annoyed, like
(continued on next page)
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503

Table 2 (continued ) Table 3

Explanatory Factors/themes Sample Quotes (example Coder 1 / 2
Measurement items and confirmatory factor analysis (N = 1362).
extracts) Frequency Scale Items (7-point Likert-type scale: 1 ¼ Item Composite
strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree) Factor Reliability (AVE)
a robot standing right there next
loading
to me asking if I want more
knowledge.” Usefulness 0.96 (0.82)
Lack of human contact and 3/5 The retail service robot would be useful. 0.89***
personal connection Using the retail service robot would save me 0.91***
“The biggest negative would time. 0.92***
just be the non-personal It would be easy to shop with the retail 0.91***
connection aspect. I personally service robot. 0.89***
get joy from talking to people in Using the retail service robot would improve
the stores. It is a kind of taking my shopping ability.
away from that experience.” Using the retail service robot would enhance
Job loss by human replacement 5/5 my effectiveness during shopping.
“It would eventually take away Social capability 0.91 (0.68)
a lot of jobs from people. I like The retail service robot appears to listen 0.85***
that robots’ aspect as a resource attentively. 0.81***
but I don’t like replacing the The retail service robot appears to say 0.77***
whole sales associate role. I appropriate things. 0.85***
worry about job security of the The retail service robot listens without
employees.” interrupting when the customer is talking. 0.85***
The retail service robot seems to remember
the detailed information about the
screenshots of the final video-based stimuli (fashion and food-service). customer’s
questions.
The retail service robot appears to be polite.
3.4. Main test procedure and participants Appearance 0.93 (0.71)
The retail service robot looks natural. 0.84***
We conducted an online survey with U.S. consumer panels a market The retail service robot looks visually 0.86***
research agency recruited. Participants were invited to complete an appealing. 0.87***
The retail service robot is attractive. 0.78***
online survey in exchange for $3 compensation to their earning account
The retail service robot appears human-like. 0.89***
after completing the survey. The participants were assigned randomly to The retail service robot is good looking. 0.80***
one of the three video clips, followed by the survey questions. We The retail service robot moves in a human-
collected 1,424 responses over twelve days. After excluding 62 careless like way.
Attitudes toward Human-Robot Interaction 0.89 (0.74)
responses from straight-liners who chose the same answer repeatedly
(HRI) 0.85***
throughout the survey, 1,362 responses were retained for the principal I would feel relaxed talking with the retail 0.92***
data analysis. The respondents’ demographics showed that gender was service robots. 0.80***
evenly distributed (52.9% female). The participants’ ages ranged from I would enjoy interacting with retail service
18 to 87, with a median age of 41. The participants were distributed robots.
I would feel pleasure having a conversation
widely along the income spectrum, with the median annual household
with retail service robots.
income in the range of $60,000-$79,999. The majority were Caucasians Anticipated service quality 0.93 (0.81)
(61.6%), followed by African-Americans (14.0%) and Hispanics/Latino- Overall, I would be pleased with the services 0.91***
Americans (14.0%). provided by the retail service robot. 0.86***
Overall, the service quality of the retail 0.93***
service robot is excellent.
3.5. Measures Overall, the retail service robot would meet
my expectations of what makes a good
The instrument was designed to measure consumers’ perceptions of retailer.
Retail Service Robot (RSR) acceptance (i.e., 0.96 (0.86)
RSRs, attitudes toward HRI, and intention to use RSRs. All scale items
Intention to use the RSR) 0.93***
were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by “strongly I intend to use the retail service robot in the 0.91***
disagree” (1) and “strongly agree” (7). The measures were modified future. 0.93***
from existing scales to reflect the study’s context. For the facilitating I predict I would use the retail service robot 0.94***
factors of HRI, we derived the scale items of usefulness from Davis in the future.
I plan to use the retail service robot in the
(1989), social capability from Bartneck et al. (2008) and De Ruyter et al.
future.
(2005), and appearance from Bartneck et al. (2008) and Srinivasan et al. I am likely to use the retail service robot in
(2002). For the inhibiting factor, we derived the scale items of anxiety the future.
toward robots from Nomura et al. (2006) and the attitudes toward HRI Anxiety toward robots 0.86 (0.56)
I would feel anxious about whether the retail 0.72***
from Nomura et al. (2008) and Ko et al. (2005). Lastly, we adopted the
service robot might talk about irrelevant
measures of the anticipated service quality from Lee and Lin (2005) and things in 0.74***
the behavioral intention to use the RSR from Davis (1989) and Davis the middle of a conversation.
et al. (1989). Four faculty members at the same university conducted a I would feel anxious about whether the retail 0.68***
content analysis of the survey items, and the items were revised for service robot might not be flexible in 0.81***
following
clarity and readability based upon their comments (Table 3).
the direction of our conversation. 0.80***
I would feel anxious about how I should talk
3.6. Data analysis to the retail service robot.
I fear that using a retail service robot would
reduce the confidentiality of my personal
We used structural equation modeling (SEM) (H1-H3) and multi­ information.
group analyses (H4) to test the hypotheses proposed in this study. To Using the retail service robot would infringe
evaluate the measurements’ adequacy, we conducted confirmatory on my privacy.
factor analyses (CFA) first using Mplus v. 7.31. Before building the SEM

496
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503

Note. CFA Model Fit: χ2 (413) = 2588.34, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.951; TLI = 0.944; Table 4
RMSEA = 0.062 (90% C.I. 0.060 – 0.064); and SRMR = 0.038. *** indicates p < Construct Validity of the Final Measurement Model.
0.001.
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

basic model, we conducted multiple one-way ANOVAs to verify any
effect attributable to variations in the three product categories on all
latent constructs: fashion (n = 442); mobile technology (n = 466), and
food-service (n = 454). The results showed no significant group mean
differences (p > 0.05) among the three product categories for all
research model variables. Thus, the three product categories were
compiled into one dataset.
To conduct the multigroup analyses to test H4, we confirmed the
convergent validity and reliability of the measure of anxiety toward
robots (factor loadings ranged from 0.68 to 0.81; Cronbach’s alpha 0.86)
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). We then divided the respondents into low
and high anxiety groups using the two cutoff values and the interquartile
range. The two cut-off values were (1) the median (4.0) − 0.25 *
interquartile range (1.6) for the low group (anxiety score < 3.6; mean
score: 2.69) and (2) the median (4.0) + 0.25 * interquartile range (1.6)
for the high group (anxiety score > 4.40; mean score: 5.51) (Gerstman,
2014). The mid-range (n = 383; mean ranged from 3.61 to 4.40; 28.1%)
was excluded from the multigroup SEM analysis (n = 477 for the low
group; 502 for the high group). The results of a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant mean difference (F (1, 977) =
3569.48, p < 0.001) between the low group (M = 2.69; anxiety score <
3.6) and the high group (M = 5.51; anxiety score > 4.40). Further, we
tested the latent constructs’ measurement invariance across the two
groups to make valid group comparisons. To test the moderating effect
of anxiety toward robots (H4a to H4c), we then conducted a multigroup
analysis and Wald Chi-squared test within the SEM estimates (n = 979)
(Hair et al., 2006).
4. Results
4.1. Measurement model
The CFA results indicated that the final measurement model
demonstrated satisfactory fit indices: χ2 (413) = 2588.34, p < 0.001; CFI
= 0.951; TLI = 0.944; RMSEA = 0.062 (90% C.I. 0.060 – 0.064); and
SRMR = 0.038 (Hooper et al., 2008). The parameters were estimated
using the maximum likelihood method. All factor loadings ranged from
0.68 to 0.94, greater than the 0.60 cut-off value (Table 3). The latent
constructs’ construct validities were evaluated according to their
convergent and discriminant validities. These findings confirmed their
convergent validity: (1) All path weights were significant (p < 0.001)
(Hair et al., 2009); (2) all constructs’ composite reliabilities ranged from
0.86 to 0.96, meeting the minimum criteria of 0.70 (Nunnally & Bern­
stein, 1994), and (3) the values of the average variances extracted
(AVEs) for all latent variables ranged from 0.56 to 0.86, greater than the
threshold value of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity
was also confirmed, as the AVE values were greater than the shared
variance (i.e., squared correlation coefficients) between all possible
pairs of latent variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), as illustrated in
Table 4.
4.2. Structural model
The results of the SEM supported the relations depicted in our model:
χ2 (291) = 2245.57, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.952; TLI = 0.946; RMSEA =
0.070 (90% C.I. 0.068 – 0.073); and SRMR = 0.033. All path coefficients
were significant (p < 0.01) and thus supported all hypothesized relations
(Fig. 2). Specifically, usefulness (β = 0.693, p < 0.001) (H1a), social
capability (β = 0.067, p < 0.01) (H1b), and appearance (β = 0.222, p <
0.001) (H1c) influenced the attitudes toward HRI significantly. In turn,
the attitudes toward HRI influenced the anticipated service quality (β =
0.952, p < 0.001) (H2). Further, the anticipated service quality had
1 Usefulness 0.82
2 Social capability 0.49 0.68
3 Appearance 0.62 0.39 0.71
4 Attitudes toward 0.69 0.40 0.61 0.74
HRI
5 Anticipated 0.70 0.49 0.55 0.70 0.81
service quality
6 RSR acceptance 0.69 0.38 0.49 0.71 0.79 0.86
7 Anxiety toward 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.56
robots
Notes: The diagonal entries show the average variance extracted (AVE) for each
construct. The off-diagonal entries represent the variance shared (squared cor­
relation) between constructs.
positive effects on RSR acceptance as measured by the intention to use
robots (β = 0.951, p < 0.001) (H3). Table 5 summarizes the test results
from the SEM basic model analysis.
4.3. Measurement invariance
Before conducting the multigroup analyses, we tested measurement
invariance in the latent constructs to ensure valid group comparisons
across the two groups who possessed low (n = 477) and high (n = 502)
anxiety toward robots. We ran a series of constrained CFA models to test
whether the differences between the models across the two groups were
significant: (1) configural invariance; (2) metric invariance; (3)
intercept-only invariance, and (4) scalar invariance (Muthén & Muthén,
2012). For the configural invariance, we ran two separate CFA models
with unconstrained factor loadings and intercepts for the low group
(model 1: χ2 (284) = 1130.99, p < 0.001) and high group (model 2: χ2
(284) = 1003.20, p < 0.001). For metric invariance between the two
groups, we ran a CFA model in which the factor loadings were con­
strained to be equal across the two groups, but the intercepts were
allowed to vary between groups (model 3: χ2 (595) = 2234.61, p <
0.001). For intercept-only invariance, we ran a CFA model in which the
intercepts were constrained to be equal across groups, but the factor
loadings varied between groups (model 4: χ2 (594) = 2307.34, p <
0.001). Finally, to test scalar invariance, we ran a model in which both
the factor loadings and intercepts were constrained to be equal across
the two groups (model 5: χ2 (620) = 2403.68, p < 0.001). The goodness-
of-fit statistics of the set of constrained CFA models were acceptable, and
the measurement invariance was established (Table 6). The results
indicated equivalence across the two comparison groups (low and high
anxiety groups) for the number of factors, their factor loadings, item
intercepts, and scalar invariance (Muthén & Muthén, 2012).
4.4. Multigroup analyses
To run multigroup analyses, we examined the overall moderating
effect of anxiety toward robots first by running a common model in
which all paths were free to vary across the high and low groups
(Muthén & Muthén, 2012). The goodness-of-fit statistics of the common
model were satisfactory: χ2 (622) = 2708.50, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.929;
TLI = 0.926; RMSEA = 0.083; and SRMR = 0.051. We then held three
gamma estimates (i.e., paths from three exogenous variables to an
endogenous variable) equal across the two groups, and conducted a
Wald Chi-squared difference test of parameter constraints (Muthén &
Muthén, 2012). The overall moderation effect of anxiety toward robots
on the relation between the three facilitators and attitudes toward HRI
was significant: Wald χ2 (3) = 34.375, p < 0.001.
Then, we tested each constrained estimate of gamma for equivalency
individually by holding each path coefficient equal in each group
(Muthén & Muthén, 2012). As shown in Table 7, there was no significant

497
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503

HRI Facilitators *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

H1a:
Usefulness 0.693***

H2: H3:
0.952 0.951
Social H1b: Attitudes toward *** *** Retail Service
Anticipated
Capability 0.067** Human-Robot Robot (RSR)
Service Quality
Interaction (HRI) Acceptance

H4a
Appearance H1c:
0.222 H4b
*** **
H4c
*** Multigroup Analyses
H4a: Low group 0.746*** = High group 0.673*** (Wald χ2 = 0.13; No difference)
Anxiety toward
Robots H4b: Low group 0.150*** > High group -0.027 (Wald χ2 = 10.53**; Sig. difference)
H4c: Low group 0.109** < High group 0.328*** (Wald χ2 = 18.44***; Sig. difference)
HRI Inhibitor

Fig. 2. Research Model and SEM Multigroup Analysis.

difference in the path coefficient from usefulness to attitudes toward HRI

Table 5
(Wald χ2 (1) = 0.13, p > 0.05), which did not support H4a. However, the
SEM basic model hypotheses testing (n = 1362).
Wald χ2 difference value associated with the relation between social
Hypothesis Structural Standardized Standard Est./S.E. (z- capability and attitudes toward HRI was significant (Wald χ2 (1) =
Paths Estimate Error values)
10.53, p < 0.01). Specifically, the path coefficient was greater for the
H1a Usefulness → 0.693 0.028 25.170*** low anxiety group (β = 0.150) than the high anxiety group (β = -0.027).
supported HRI a
This finding supports H4b. The Wald χ2 difference for the path between
H1b Social 0.067 0.022 3.078**
supported capability →
HRI Table 7
H1c Appearance → 0.222 0.026 8.543*** Multigroup analyses: moderated relationship hypotheses testing (n = 979).
supported HRI
H2 HRI → 0.952 0.005 208.883*** Hypotheses Paths Wald χ 2 Path coefficient (β)
supported Anticipated (df ¼ 1) Low High
service quality group group
H3 Anticipated 0.951 0.004 231.033***
supported service quality H4a not Usefulness → Attitudes 0.13 0.746*** 0.673***
→ RSR supported toward HRI
Acceptance H4b Social capability → 10.53** 0.150*** − 0.027
supported Attitudes toward HRI
Note. *p < 0.05. H4c not Appearance → Attitudes 18.44*** 0.109** 0.328***
a
HRI = attitudes toward human-robot interaction. supported toward HRI
**
p < 0.01.
*** Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Low anxiety group (n = 477) and high
p < 0.001.
anxiety group (n = 502).

Table 6
Measurement Invariance Testing (n = 979).
CFA Model Group χ2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Configural Invariance
Model 1 Low a 1130.99 284 ***
0.937 0.928 0.079 0.039
Model 2 High b 1003.20 284 ***
0.958 0.952 0.071 0.026
Metric Invariance
Model 3 Low/High c 2234.61 595 ***
0.946 0.941 0.075 0.085
Intercept Only Invariance
Model 4 Low/High c 2307.34 594 ***
0.944 0.939 0.077 0.039
Scalar Invariance
Model 5 Low/High c 2403.68 620 ***
0.942 0.939 0.077 0.087
**
Note. *p < 0.05, p < 0.01.
a
n = 477, low anxiety group cut-off value (<3.60): median ¡ 0.25 × interquartile range.
b
n = 502, high anxiety group cut-off value (>4.40): median + 0.25 × interquartile range.
c
n = 979, both low anxiety group (n = 477) and high anxiety group (n = 502).
***
p < 0.001.

498
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim
appearance and attitudes toward HRI was also significant (Wald χ2 (1)
= 18.44, p < 0.001), but the direction of the moderation was opposite to
H4c: the path coefficient was greater for the high anxiety group (β =
0.328) than the low anxiety group (β = 0.109). Therefore, H4c was not
supported. Table 7 presents the results of the multigroup analyses. Fig. 2
illustrates the final SEM model with the multigroup results.
5. Implications and recommendations
Using CASA theory as the underlying theoretical framework, this
study built a humanoid RSR acceptance model by focusing on attitudinal
HRI. The findings demonstrated that: (1) Consumers’ positive attitudes
toward HRI are based upon the three facilitators of humanoid RSRs’
usefulness, social capability, and appearance; (2) pre-existing anxiety
toward robots moderated these HRI facilitating relations, and (3) the
attitudes toward HRI determined anticipation of service quality, which
in turn, influenced the acceptance of humanoid RSRs positively. These
results provide theoretical implications to extend CASA and specific
guidelines for RSR developers and marketers to design humanoids that
lead to successful interactions with consumers and promote their
acceptance.
5.1. Theoretical implications
Nass and Moon’s (2000) experiments validated the CASA and
showed that users’ social responses in human-to-human and human-to-
computer environments do not differ significantly. However, because
the CASA framework was developed originally for communication with
media and basic computer/machine interfaces, the new technology
acceptance literature has called for empirical validation and extension of
the CASA paradigm to advanced humanoid RSRs (Fox & Gambino, 2021;
Song & Kim, 2021). For instance, Nass and Moon (2000) mentioned, “A
computer is unaware of a user’s emotions, and it never expresses emo­
tions of its own. It doesn’t even refer to itself as ‘I’.” (p. 82). Currently,
neither of those statements is applicable to a humanoid RSR, in that it
expresses its AI programmed emotions verbally and refers to itself as “I,”
uses text-to-speech software, body language and gestures, and mimics
human workers (Tuomi et al., 2021). Although one can argue that ro­
bots’ AI computed expressions are too artificial, AI-based robot tech­
nology is likely to advance to the next level of sophistication in
humanizing the robots (i.e., AI emotional sensibility, cognitive intelli­
gence, and aesthetics), which may provide sufficient cues for users to
experience social and emotional HRI (Fox & Gambino, 2021; Gambino
et al., 2020; Xiao & Kumar, 2019). Further, conventional TAM models
(Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003) do not include humanoid robots’
idiosyncratic characteristics of interactive social intelligence (Fox &
Gambino, 2021; Song, 2017; Song & Kim, 2020).
In the conclusion of Nass and Moon’s (2000) article, the researchers
called for a future theoretical investigation to answer the question, “…
which characteristics of computers (and other media) lead which in­
dividuals to follow which social rules how similarly to human–human
interaction, and why?” (p. 100). By applying the CASA to humanoid
RSRs, our study unravels the tangle of humanoid RSRs’ characteristics
that typically affect consumer beliefs and emotions in human-to-human
interaction and have also been found consistently to be critical factors in
HRI and the acceptance of service robots (Nass & Moon, 2000; Song &
Kim, 2021). In addition, the authors indicated that “… validation of the
CASA paradigm involves investigating whether humans exhibit the same
basic patterns of behavior toward computers that are found in human­
–human interaction” (p. 99). Although we did not conduct a direct
behavioral lab experiment, our study demonstrated consumers’ ten­
dency to exhibit similar basic patterns of social responses to humanoid
robots and their behavioral intention to use them. Hence, this study
advances the CASA literature, particularly in social interaction with AI
humanoids in frontline customer service. Of course, further research is
required to validate the CASA in face-to-face interaction with humanoid
499
Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503
RSRs.
With the increase in consumers’ technology experience and media
exposure to robots, their reference point of humanness cues will likely
change. As robots are becoming more intelligent and capable of learning
on their own from physical and emotional interactions in retail envi­
ronments, consumers’ perceptions and associated variables will shift
constantly in future RSR studies (Song, 2017; Song & Kim, 2020; Yueren
et al., 2019). Further, tasks that suit humans better will be modified as
the retail application of humanoids broadens, and will free humans from
repetitive tasks and create meaningful new tasks for human staff.
Therefore, the theoretical development of humanoid RSRs should focus
on dispersing HRI and collaborative endeavors (i.e., robots as collabo­
rators in teamwork), and shift from human imitation and substitution to
task-cooperative complementarity. In this respect, this study allows
retail roboticists and scholars to grasp a clear picture of the theoretical
application and generalization of HRI by providing a robust consumer
acceptance model of humanoids across three mainstream retail settings:
fashion, technology, and food-service. In future studies, researchers in
the RSR field should consider extending, repositioning, and testing
existing and modified technology theories to reflect the changing dy­
namics between RSRs and human interaction.
5.2. Managerial implications
This study provides several managerial implications for retailers and
service providers to adopt new robot technology successfully in their
service encounters. By doing so, businesses will be able to design less-
error prone adoption processes and achieve value-added efficiency in
operation. First, a RSR’s usefulness cue was found to influence con­
sumers’ attitudes toward HRI positively. Consumers who perceive a
greater benefit in using a RSR, such as convenience of shopping and time
saving, are more likely to experience pleasure in communicating with a
RSR. This finding supports the positive effect of perceived usefulness on
the attitudes toward technology in the past TAM models (Davis, 1989;
Venkatesh et al., 2003), and the positive effect of performance expec­
tancy on consumers’ emotional response to AI devices (Gursoy et al.,
2019). In this study, consumers’ perceived usefulness was derived from
modern humanoids equipped with new value-added functionalities,
such as mimicking human emotional communicability, body language,
and gestures. This addresses the importance of robots’ ability to provide
beneficial task performance similar to human service staff to achieve
reciprocal interaction. From a managerial perspective, designing an
intuitive interface with enhanced supportive functions that allow con­
sumers to use a robot easily, safely, and efficiently can reduce their
resistance to HRI and make the new technology accessible and
enjoyable.
Second, a RSR’s social capability cue was found to have a significant
effect on consumers’ attitudes toward HRI. While researchers have
demonstrated that a humanoid robot’s social abilities determine users’
positive adoption of robots in hotel and restaurant settings (Tuomi et al.,
2021), they have not tested the relation between those social cues and
emotional HRI in retail sectors. Our study supported the notion that
robots’ social skills, such as their intellectual and articulate responses to
consumers’ requests, are the key facilitators of interacting with RSRs.
Yet, AI-driven communication is impersonal, and robots do not have the
personalized memory necessary to build a persistent social relationship
with people whose reactions are utterly distinctive. As retailers venture
into the territory of AI service robots, they need to consider this barrier
when designing and adopting specific types of RSRs that can enhance
social interactivity. To encourage users’ sense of social belonging and a
personal bond with RSRs, retailers can adopt strategies that (1) upgrade
RSRs’ AI-ability in dynamic algorithmic decision-making in conversa­
tions to accommodate consumers’ various service situations, (2)
improve robots’ ability to speak naturally, and (3) tailor communication
to individual users based upon the personal information they provide to
robots to receive customized service. However, given the potential
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim
discomfort and privacy issues in interactions with AI robots, retailers
should provide consumers with an option to self-select whether they
want to be served by RSRs, human staff, or both.
Third, a humanoid RSR’s appearance cue influenced attitudes to­
ward interacting with it positively. While past studies’ interests in hu­
manoids’ appearance have focused primarily on their degree of
resemblance to humans (Appel et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021; Mende et al.,
2019), our study shifted the meaning of the visual cue to “appealing
appearance with human-like components.” Because general consumers
are not familiar with RSRs yet, the RSR’s appearance needs to be within
users’ comfort zone and approachable for communication (Song, 2017;
Stock & Nguyen, 2019). Therefore, we recommend that RSR developers
create new designs of robots that are more natural and attractive to
reduce the dissonance between humanoid robots’ visual appearance and
users’ comfort associated with physical appearance.
Fourth, the multigroup analysis results indicated that humanoid
RSRs’ social capability predicted the attitudes toward HRI only for
consumers who possessed low anxiety toward robots. For consumers
with high anxiety, a RSR can play a role as a store greeter at the entrance
that simultaneously incites social interaction and positive emotions
when shoppers enter (Pinillos et al., 2016). For example, the perception
of positive surprise is likely to prevent users from having negative
thoughts about the robots (Chuah & Yu, 2021). Because anxious con­
sumers are more cautious about approaching the robot, retailers should
proactively show them the RSR’s comprehensive communication abil­
ity, verbal responsiveness, and emotional expressions such as happiness
and amusement that may attenuate their negative preconceptions about
the robot. In contrast to what we expected, RSRs’ appearance had a more
substantial effect on the attitudes toward HRI for the high anxiety group
than the low anxiety group. It is possible that consumers with high
anxiety are more sensitive to the robot’s physical features and, thus,
evaluate their appearance more intensively to assess whether the robots
will perform their task safely and communicate with them without
barriers (Makarius et al., 2020). Because such anxiety has been identi­
fied frequently as a significant cause of technology avoidance (Celik &
Yesilyurt, 2013), providing educational marketing campaigns would
reduce consumers’ anxiety about interaction with the robots by high­
lighting their beneficial functions of shopping effectiveness and time-
saving and experiential enjoyment in use.
Fifth, the results also showed that attitudes toward HRI increased the
anticipation of service quality, which affected the acceptance of hu­
manoid RSRs positively. The findings support in part Choi et al.’s (2020)
association between the lack of social perceptions of warmth in HRI and
service dissatisfaction. However, our study demonstrated specifically
the mediating role of service expectancy from humanoid RSRs that in­
tervenes between HRI and acceptance of the robots. This finding is
particularly important in reminding practitioners about the extent of
added-value services consumers may expect from their interaction with
humanoids in their shopping experience—HRI should lead to better
service quality, whether with robots alone or with both robots and
human employees. Hence, we recommend that retailers create sophis­
ticated RSR systems that promise positive interactions with users, pro­
vide context-specific, value-added services, are simpler to operate, and
can be integrated easily into HRI processes. In particular, service pro­
viders must consider the increase in the aging population, as many se­
niors can be hesitant to initiate HRI because of the challenges of using
technology (Ho et al., 2020). For them, easy-to-use, multi-modal (i.e.,
both voice interaction and a large touch screen integration), and
conversational HRI would improve service quality overall. Further, to
enhance HRI, human staff must perform crucial roles to co-produce a
better service quality with RSRs and sustain their safe and responsible
application.
5.3. Limitations and directions for future research
Our results come with several limitations. Because of consumers’
500
Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503
unfamiliarity with RSRs, we used video stimuli to inform them about
robots and ask about their future behavioral intention to use a humanoid
robot called “Pepper.” While using video clips made the research sce­
nario more engaging and interactive for participants, we acknowledge
that there may have been a potential media effect on their perception of,
and reactions to, RSRs. In addition, because the determining factor in
imitating robots’ human-likeness may depend upon the job tasks that
they perform and the type of product/service (van Pinxteren et al.,
2019), customization of RSRs’ appearance may be necessary based upon
the service settings. Therefore, rather than a consumer acceptance sur­
vey with video-based stimuli, future studies should consider field-testing
the specific effects of actual physical designs of RSRs (e.g., human-like
vs. machine-like, realistic vs. unrealistic, and male-like vs. female-like)
in different frontline service environments, such as hotels, airports,
and hospitals (Beer et al., 2011; Mende et al., 2019). In these field tests,
researchers can assess humanoid robots’ specific functions, such as
flexible decision making and emotion-reading ability, to identify
possible functional alternatives to enhance humanoids’ usefulness
overall. Further, we assessed attitudes toward HRI by measuring
emotional responses during the interaction with humanoids. Thus,
testing other interaction metrics may generate additional interest in this
research field, such as interaction time and methods (e.g., voice,
touchscreen) and types of conversations (i.e., social, product inquiry,
and transaction-related). At the same time, this study focused on con­
sumers’ perspectives, but did not include employees’ views on human­
oid RSR adoption, which may influence their task assignments and work
environments (Niemelä et al., 2019). Therefore, investigating em­
ployees’ readiness to collaborate with robots and their perceptions of
their changed roles would provide an important contribution to the field
of humanoid RSR research.
5.4. Conclusion
This study draws attention to the emerging use of humanoid robots in
retail industries and provides empirical findings useful to both aca­
demics and practitioners. First, this research extends the theoretical
tenets of the CASA paradigm to humanoid RSRs to build a robust
acceptance model of currently prevalent humanoids across three
mainstream retail settings of RSRs, fashion, technology, and food-
service. With limited past research on CASA’s applicability to human­
oid robots (e.g., Eyssel & Hegel, 2012; Kahn et al., 2012; Pelau et al.,
2021), this study provides new insights into the way humanoid RSRs
should behave and what characteristics they should have to increase
consumers’ use of robots and alleviate the pre-existing anxiety toward
robots that they may have. Second, because humanoid robots are
designed to mimic humans’ form and behavior, measuring the
emotional aspect of RSRs is critical to assess users’ responses to them
accurately. Accordingly, we used HRI as a core construct in our research
model and found that three antecedents (usefulness, social capability,
and appearance) significantly affected HRI. Third, we found that pre-
existing anxiety toward robots is an important construct to include in
the model, as we identified its significant role as a moderator between
two antecedents (social capability and appearance) and HRI. Specif­
ically, the effect of social capability on HRI was stronger among con­
sumers with low anxiety, while the effect of appearance on HRI was
stronger among those with high anxiety. Lastly, while most companies
are in the exploratory stage of attracting consumers’ attention with the
unprecedented innovation (Chuah & Yu, 2021), this study contends that
HRI should be directed to improve RSRs’ service quality when they are
adopted in their service operations. We hope that this study will stim­
ulate future research interest in humanoid robots by extending our
model to explore further the relations among facilitators, inhibitors,
HRI, and acceptance of the robots.
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503

CRediT authorship contribution statement
Christina Soyoung Song: Writing – original draft, Funding acqui­
sition, Formal analysis, Visualization, Investigation, Resources, Meth­
odology, Validation, Conceptualization. Youn-Kyung Kim: Writing –
review & editing, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology,
Conceptualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the following dissertation committee members for
their expertise and assistance throughout our study and their help in
writing the original draft of the manuscript: Dr. Sejin Ha, Dr. James A.
Williams, and Dr. Williams R. Nugent at the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville. The authors also thank Dr. Soo-Hee Park at the Tennessee
Department of Education and Dr. Bruce W. Jo at SUNY Stony Brook
University for their expertise and valuable feedback on this article.
Funding information
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors
thank the Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, the College of
Applied Science and Technology (CAST), and the Office of Research and
Graduate Studies (Research and Sponsored Programs) at the Illinois
State University for the faculty Startup Funds and the Publication Grant
of this research. In addition, the authors received partial funding for
data collection from the Department of Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism
Management at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Appendix A

An example script (mobile technology) and two screenshots of the final video-based stimuli

Screenshots of the Final Video-Based Stimuli

Narrator An Example Script (Mobile Technology Store)

Narrator: A retail service robot is an in-store customer service robot with artificial intelligence to help customers in navigating a store, finding products and information, and
completing purchase transactions.
Pepper: Hello, welcome to the mobile phone store.
Pepper: If you have any questions, I can check my data and give you personalized recommendations of our products. I can also help you place orders at my touch screen. What can
I do for you?
Customer: Hello, I need a phone with a large screen and with an awesome camera. Can you explain some features and capabilities of several phones?
Pepper: Sure, let me check the new products features.
Pepper: Can I suggest this item? This new phone product has the wide screen with the pure color LCD and has the best camera performance with digital zoom.
Customer: That is great! The style is important. The battery life is also important.
Pepper: Those factors are important features to consider when purchasing a new mobile phone. If you find yourself wishing you could zoom in on distant subjects and still get a
decent shot, then this is the phone for you. It is the best budget phone you can buy with a premium look and feel, dual camera, and great battery life of 23 h run time.
Pepper: If you have your customer ID card, I can check if you’re qualified to receive 30% discount on your next purchase. I can help you with the user instruction and cell phone
plan. What do you think of this phone?
Customer: I like that.
Customer: Thank you for your help!

References
Appel, M., Izydorczyk, D., Weber, S., Mara, M., & Lischetzke, T. (2020). The uncanny of
mind in a machine: Humanoid robots as tools, agents, and experiencers. Computers in
Human Behavior, 102, 274–286.
Awakening Health Ltd. (2021). [Pictures of the Grace]. Awakening Health. https://
awakening.health/.
Bartneck, C., Croft, E., & Kulic, D. (2008). Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy,
likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. Proceedings of 3rd
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Amsterdam,
Netherlands.
Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Understanding robot
acceptance. Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, School of Psychology, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Technical Report HFA-TR-1103.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

501
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim
Brengman, M., De Gauquier, L., Willems, K., & Vanderborght, B. (2021). From stopping
to shopping: An observational study comparing a humanoid service robot with a
tablet service kiosk to attract and convert shoppers. Journal of Business Research, 134,
263–274.
Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-
efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education.
Computers & Education, 60(1), 148–158.
Choi, S., Mattila, A. S., & Bolton, L. E. (2020). To err is human(-oid): How do consumers
react to robot service failure and recovery? Journal of Service Research, 24(3),
354–371.
Chuah, S. H.-W., & Yu, J. (2021). The future of service: The power of emotion in human-
robot interaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, Article 102551.
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed
and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6
(4), 284.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8),
982–1003.
de Graaf, M. M., Allouch, S. B., & Klamer, T. (2015). Sharing a life with Harvey:
Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Computers
in Human Behavior, 43, 1–14.
De Ruyter, B., Saini, P., Markopoulos, P., & Van Breemen, A. (2005). Assessing the effects
of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interacting with
Computers, 17(5), 522–541.
Eyssel, F., & Hegel, F. (2012). (S)he’s got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2213–2230.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3),
382–388.
Fox, J., & Gambino, A. (2021). Relationship development with humanoid social robots:
Applying interpersonal theories to human/robot interaction. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(5), 294–299.
Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. A. (2020). Building a stronger CASA: Extending the
computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 1, 71–86.
Gerstman, B. B. (2014). Basic biostatistics: Statistics for public health practice (2nd ed.).
Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Goodrich, M. A., & Schultz, A. C. (2007). Human-robot interaction: A survey. Foundations
and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203–275.
Gursoy, D., Chi, O. H., Lu, L., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). Consumers acceptance of artificially
intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. International Journal of Information
Management, 49, 157–169.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence and robotics: Shaking up the
business world and society at large. Journal of Business Research, 124, 405–407.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis
(7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hanson Robotics Ltd. (2021). [Pictures of the Sophia and the Grace robots]. Hanson
Robotics Ltd. https://www.hansonrobotics.com/.
Heerink, M. (2011). Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer
experience on robot acceptance by older adults. Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Heikkilä, P., Lammi, H., Niemelä, M., Belhassein, K., Sarthou, G., Tammela, A., Clodic,
A., & Alami, R. (2019). Should a robot guide like a human? A qualitative four-phase
study of a shopping mall robot. Social Robotics. ICSR 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (p. 548-557). Madrid, Spain: Springer, Cham.
Ho, T. H., Tojib, D., & Tsarenko, Y. (2020). Human staff vs. Service robot vs. Fellow
customer: Does it matter who helps your customer following a service failure
incident? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87, Article 102501.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods,
6(1), 53–60.
Kahn, P. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., Gill, B. T., … Shen, S.
(2012). “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral
relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303–314.
Kim, S. Y., Schmitt, B. H., & Thalmann, N. M. (2019). Eliza in the uncanny valley:
Anthropomorphizing consumer robots increases their perceived warmth but
decreases liking. Marketing Letters, 30(1), 1–12.
Ko, H., Cho, C.-H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural
equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 57–70.
Lee, G.-G., & Lin, H.-F. (2005). Customer perceptions of e-service quality in online
shopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(2), 161–176.
Lu, L., Zhang, P., & Zhang, T. (2021). Leveraging “human-likeness” of robotic service at
restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, Article 102823.
Makarius, E. E., Mukherjee, D., Fox, J. D., & Fox, A. K. (2020). Rising with the machines:
A sociotechnical framework for bringing artificial intelligence into the organization.
Journal of Business Research, 120, 262–273.
Mastercard Inc. (2021). [Picture of the Pepper Robot]. MasterCard Pepper Café.
Mastercard Inc. https://www.mastercard.com.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass
correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46.
502
Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503
Mende, M., Scott, M. L., van Doorn, J., Grewal, D., & Shanks, I. (2019). Service robots
rising: How humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory
consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 535–556.
Meyer, P., Jonas, J., & Roth, A. (2020). Frontline employees’ acceptance of and
resistance to service robots in stationary retail - an exploratory interview study.
Journal of Service Management Research, 4(1), 21–34.
Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani [The uncanny valley]. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.
Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [From the field].
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100.
Murphy, J., Gretzel, U., & Pesonen, J. (2019). Marketing robot services in hospitality and
tourism: The role of anthropomorphism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36
(7), 784–795.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Special modeling issues. Mplus. Statistical analysis
with latent variables. User’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Niemelä, M., Heikkilä, P., Lammi, H., & Oksman, V. (2019). A social robot in a shopping
mall: Studies on acceptance and stakeholder expectations. In O. Korn (Ed.), Social
robots: Technological, societal and ethical aspects of human-robot interaction (pp.
119–144). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2008). Prediction of human behavior in
human–robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative
attitudes toward robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(2), 442–451.
Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., & Kato, K. (2006). Measurement of anxiety toward
robots. ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human
Interactive Communication, Hatfield, UK.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hall.
Pelau, C., Dabija, D.-C., & Ene, I. (2021). What makes an AI device human-like? The role
of interaction quality, empathy and perceived psychological anthropomorphic
characteristics in the acceptance of artificial intelligence in the service industry.
Computers in Human Behavior, 122, Article 106855.
Pinillos, R., Marcos, S., Feliz, R., Zalama, E., & Gómez-García-Bermejo, J. (2016). Long-
term assessment of a service robot in a hotel environment. Robotics and Autonomous
Systems, 79, 40–57.
Polegato, R., & Bjerke, R. (2019). Looking forward: Anticipation enhances service
experiences. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(2), 148–159.
Riegger, A.-S., Klein, J. F., Merfeld, K., & Henkel, S. (2021). Technology-enabled
personalization in retail stores: Understanding drivers and barriers. Journal of
Business Research, 123, 140–155.
RobotLAB Inc. (2016, January 16). Robotlab & curvetips fashion recommendation system on
a Pepper robot [YouTube]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fQ1uf-Obms.
RobotLAB Inc. (2021). [Pictures of Pepper and NAO]. RobotLAB Inc. https://www.
robotlab.com/.
Ruijten, P. A., Haans, A., Ham, J., & Midden, C. J. (2019). Perceived human-likeness of
social robots: Testing the rasch model as a method for measuring
anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(3), 477–494.
SoftBank Robotics. (2019). Robots, improving ‘phygital’ experience for today’s empowered
shoppers. SoftBank Robotics. https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/
industries/retail.
Song, C. S., & Kim, Y.-K. (2021). Predictors of consumers’ willingness to share personal
information with fashion sales robots. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63,
Article 102727.
Song, S. Y. (2017). Modeling the consumer acceptance of retail service robot. [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville]. Trace, Tennessee Research and
Creative Exchange.
Song, S. Y., & Kim, Y.-K. (2020). Factors influencing consumers’ intention to adopt
fashion robot advisors: Psychological network analysis. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 40(1), 3–18.
Srinivasan, S. S., Anderson, R., & Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce:
An exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 78(1),
41–50.
Stock, R. M, & Nguyen, M. A. (2019). Robotic psychology. What do we know about
human-robot interaction and what do we still need to learn? Proceedings of the 52nd
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, HI.
Stock, R. M., & Merkle, M. (2017). A service robot acceptance model: User acceptance of
humanoid robots during service encounters. Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom
Workshops), Kona, HI.
Tuomi, A., Tussyadiah, I. P., & Hanna, P. (2021). Spicing up hospitality service
encounters: The case of Pepper™. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 3(11), 3906–3925.
Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010). Does the
technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review.
Information and Software Technology, 52, 463–479.
van Pinxteren, M. M. E., Wetzels Ruud, W. H., Rüger, J., Pluymaekers, M., & Wetzels, M.
(2019). Trust in humanoid robots: Implications for services marketing. Journal of
Services Marketing, 33(4), 507–518.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
C.S. Song and Y.-K. Kim
Xiao, L., & Kumar, V. (2019). Robotics for customer service: A useful complement or an
ultimate substitute? Journal of Service Research, 24(1), 9–29.
Yoganathan, V., Osburg, V.-S., H. Kunz, W., & Toporowski, W. (2021). Check-in at the
robo-desk: Effects of automated social presence on social cognition and service
implications. Tourism Management, 85, 104309.
Yueren, Z., Yoshihiro, K., & Tetsuya, T. (2019). Discovering humanoid robot
consciousness within caring science. International Journal for Human Caring, 23(2),
121–131.
Christina Soyoung Song, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Fashion Merchandising in the
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences at Illinois State University in the U.S.A. She
received a doctoral degree from University of Tennessee, Knoxville and has published in
the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Journal of Business Ethics, Personality
and Individual Differences, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Sustainability, and
Journal of Global Fashion Marketing. Her research interests lie in the areas of retail service
robots (RSRs), Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), robotic process automation (RPA),
503
Journal of Business Research 146 (2022) 489–503
Artificial Intelligence (AI), high-tech service industries, wearable technology, 3D/4D
printing, digital analytics, machine learning, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), and
sustainability. ORCID Christina Soyoung Song http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2031-5694
Youn-Kyung Kim, Ph.D., received a doctoral degree from University of North Carolina at
Greensboro and is a Professor in the Department of Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism
Management at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee in the U.S.A. She is
currently the Editor-in-Chief of Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. She published a
book, “Experiential Retailing: Concepts and Strategies That Sell” and articles in Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, International Journal of Consumer Studies, International
Journal of Design, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Advertising Research, Psy­
chology & Marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Computers in Human Behavior,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, and Journal of Marketing Channels. ORCID Youn-Kyung Kim http://orcid.
org/0000-0002-5507-5152.