The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm
IJCHM
34,5
2004
Received 16 October 2021
Revised 28 December 2021
11 February 2022
Accepted 21 February 2022
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 34 No. 5, 2022
pp. 2004-2025
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2021-1262
Robots at your service: value
facilitation and value co-creation
in restaurants
Xiya Zhang, M.S. Balaji and Yangyang Jiang
Nottingham University Business School China,
University of Nottingham – Ningbo China, Ningbo, China
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to understand the process of guest-robot value co-creation in the restaurant
context. It empirically examines the guest perception of value facilitation by service robots and its impact on
guest value co-creation and advocacy intentions. It also investigates the moderating role of interaction
comfort in the relationship between service robot value facilitation and guest value co-creation.
Design/methodology/approach – A mixed-methods approach was adopted. Ten customers who had
dined at a service robot restaurant in China were interviewed in the qualitative study, followed by a
quantitative study with 252 restaurant patrons to test the relationships between service robot value
facilitation, guest value co-creation, interaction comfort and advocacy intentions.
Findings – Guest perceptions of six robot attributes, including role significance, competence, social
presence, warmth, autonomy and adaptability, determine service robot value facilitation. Interaction comfort
moderates the influence of service robot value facilitation on guest value co-creation. Additionally, guest value
co-creation mediates the effect of service robot value facilitation on advocacy intentions.
Research limitations/implications – This study offers an understanding of six robot attributes that
can improve service robot value facilitation. Nevertheless, the authors collected data from guests who had
experience at service robot restaurants. The authors encourage future research to use random sampling
methods to ensure study representativeness.
Practical implications – This study offers strategic guidance for managers to deploy service robots in
frontline roles in restaurants and provides important implications for service robot design to improve their
facilitating role in the guest value co-creation process.
Originality/value – This study responds to a recent call for research on the role of service robots in the
guest value co-creation experience. Unlike prior studies that focused on the adoption or acceptance of service
robots, it examines the role of service robots in the value co-creation process (post-adoption stage).
Furthermore, it is one of the early studies to identify and empirically examine the service robot attributes that
enable value facilitation and foster value co-creation in guest-robot service encounters.
Keywords Service robots, Restaurants, Value co-creation, Robot attributes, Advocacy intentions
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are rapidly transforming restaurant service
encounters with frontline employees (FLEs) increasingly being supported or even
supplanted by service robots (Guan et al., 2021; McCartney and McCartney, 2020; Tuomi
et al., 2021). Service robots, which are devices or agents that perform specific service tasks
and activities, have been considered a disruptive innovation in the restaurant context (Choi
et al., 2019). The use of service robots encompasses a wide range of operations both in the
front (e.g. host, serving) and at the back (e.g. cooking, cleaning dishes) of the restaurant (Kim
et al., 2021). According to recent research, the global food robotics market is predicted to
expand at a 12.7% annual rate to US$3.1bn by 2025 (Albrecht, 2019). For example, at Robots at your
Claypot Rice, a Chinese restaurant in Calgary, service robots welcome guests, take their service
orders and serve food to their tables (Wu, 2020). At the Semmancheri restaurant in India,
seven robots serve food and interact with guests (India Today, 2019). As service robots
become more prevalent in restaurants, they are expected to substantially influence the guest
experience (Doborjeh et al., 2022). This is because when guests interact with service robots,
they become an integral element of service production and a co-creator of value.
Value co-creation refers to the process through which the customer and service provider 2005
collaborate to jointly create value that is distinctive to the customer and sustainable for the
service provider (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). In a robotic restaurant, which is a new
model of restaurant that operates with fewer human encounters, service robots are used to
interact, assist and serve guests by engaging in a wide range of activities such as hosting,
taking orders, delivering food, cleaning and entertaining (Cha, 2020). Thus, in the restaurant
guest-robot encounter, a service robot acts as a value facilitator to foster value co-creation
with the guest. As a value facilitator, the service robot should interact with guests and
facilitate their restaurant experience by providing resources and offering support (Hwang
et al., 2020). However, little is known about the role of this new operant resource – service
robots – in determining the value co-creation process. In particular, the question of which
attributes of service robots facilitate guest value co-creation remains unanswered. An
understanding of the service robot attributes and how it fosters the guest value co-creation
process is required, because the success of such encounters affects the guest’s attitude
and intention toward the restaurant (Jiang et al., 2019). Furthermore, the guest-robot value
co-creation process involves both the role of guests and value creation enabled by
service robots. In other words, guests should actively engage with service robots, which
may be determined by how comfortable they feel when interacting with service robots
during value co-creation. Because the use of service robots in restaurants is still in the early
stages, guests may be unfamiliar with robots and feel uncomfortable interacting with them
(Mariani and Borghi, 2021; Seyitog
lu and Ivanov, 2020). However, scant attention has been
paid to the role of guest interaction comfort in the guest-robot encounters in the restaurant
context.
The aim of this paper is to understand the process of guest-robot value co-creation where
robots take the role of FLEs in providing restaurant services to guests. More specifically, we
investigate the guest perception of value facilitation by service robots, as well as its impact
on guest value co-creation and their advocacy intentions. Furthermore, we examine the
moderating role of guest interaction comfort in the relationship between service robot value
facilitation and guest value co-creation. We adopted a mixed-methods approach. A
qualitative study was conducted to identify service robots’ attributes that enable them to
facilitate guest value co-creation. The findings reveal that six attributes, namely
competence, role significance, social presence, warmth, autonomy, and adaptability,
determine the value facilitation role of service robots. Following this, a quantitative study
was carried out to investigate the influence of service robot value facilitation on guest value
co-creation and their advocacy intentions. Additionally, the moderating effect of guest
interaction comfort was tested. The findings support the proposed relationships between
service robot value facilitation, guest value co-creation, interaction comfort and advocacy
intentions.
The present study offers several contributions to the hospitality literature. First, it adds
to the body of knowledge on the role of technology in the value co-creation process and
customer experience management in the hospitality context (Jiang et al., 2019; Lei et al., 2019;
Romero and Lado, 2021). Second, it contributes to the literature on robotic experiences in
IJCHM restaurant settings. As the use of robots in service frontlines is a recent phenomenon, there
34,5 is a growing interest in understanding guest experiences in robotic restaurants, which will
help to improve the quality of experiences they provide to guests (Kim et al., 2021; Seyitog
lu
and Ivanov, 2020). Finally, whereas previous studies have predominantly focused on the
adoption or acceptance of service robots (Lee and Ko, 2021; Lee et al., 2021; Qiu et al., 2020),
the current study examines the role of service robots at the post-adoption stage. More
2006 specifically, it empirically investigates how service robots facilitate guest value co-creation
during the guest-robot encounter in restaurants.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Service robots in the hospitality sector
Service robots are smart programmable physical devices or agents that can sense, interact
and provide services to customers (Belanche et al., 2021). As an interaction counterpart of a
customer in a service encounter, service robots are expected to carry out complex tasks,
make autonomous decisions and adapt to changing circumstances (Kuo et al., 2017). Service
robots are connected and embedded into a complex internet-of-things ecosystem, allowing
them to recognize a customer, access the customer and service data from various sources
and provide highly personalized customer service. Compared to other traditional
technologies such as self-service kiosks, service robots integrate AI technology with service-
oriented qualities to meet customers’ needs and expectations. In addition, unlike AI, which is
a program, and certain robots that do not require AI to perform specific tasks, service robots
are autonomous or semiautonomous agents imbued with AI to deliver services by
augmenting or substituting the role of employees in service encounters. With the increasing
use of service robots as frontline actors in restaurants and hotels, research into service
robots is emerging in the hospitality field.
Service robots offer various benefits to service providers in the labor-intensive
hospitality sector, such as restaurants (Christou et al., 2020). Restaurants can use robots for
different tasks, including providing information, taking orders, serving food and drinks,
cooking food, greeting and entertaining guests, moving items and cleaning. Furthermore, a
single robot may handle multiple tasks such as dishwashing and cleaning, considerably
lowering operational costs (Tuomi et al., 2021). This leads to better resource utilization and
greater flexibility, which can help restaurants cater to guests and increase revenues.
Additionally, this can improve operational efficiency and reduce costs by providing more
accurate and timely customer service (Law et al., 2022). In particular, the COVID-19 outbreak
has augmented the implementation of service robots in hospitality businesses (Jiang and
Wen, 2020). Using service robots during a pandemic can reduce the risk of food
contamination and safeguard the health of FLEs from infection transmission (Seyitog
lu and
Ivanov, 2020). In other words, service robots not only help to create a safe restaurant
environment during the pandemic, but also offer an engaging and immersive service
experience. Therefore, using robots at service frontlines in a restaurant can transform the
overall experience for guests by adding a unique value to the service encounter.

2.2 Value co-creation, value facilitation and service robots

Marketing has advanced from a goods-dominant (G-D) logic to a service-dominant (S-D)
logic, with the former focusing on tangible products and separate transactions, while the
latter emphasizing intangibility, relationships, exchange processes and value co-creation
(Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Value co-creation is recognized as a core concept in the S-D logic. It
is defined as the collaborative activities of actors who exercise their agency and coordinate
efforts, apply competencies and integrate resources to improve the mutual benefits in use.
To co-create value and realize benefits, customers need to integrate resources by working Robots at your
with collaborators in the service ecosystem (Jiang et al., 2019). Therefore, customers play an service
active role in the process of value co-creation rather than being passive recipients of goods
and services. Meanwhile, service providers should fulfill the role of a “value facilitator,”
which implies facilitating the customer’s value co-creation by providing them with
information, assistance and resources (Grönroos and Gummerus, 2014). However, value
facilitation has received scant attention in service research.
Customers’ active participation and service providers’ value facilitation jointly determine 2007
the customer experience and value co-creation outcomes (Grönroos, 2007). The actors
involved in the value co-creation process can be humans, organizations and machines.
Correspondingly, the interactions investigated in the value co-creation research comprise
human-to-human interactions, human-to-non-human interactions and non-human-to-non-
human interactions. As service robots are increasingly used in service organizations,
especially at service frontlines, more academic research is required to comprehend the role of
service robots in the service value co-creation process.
Service robots can replace or supplement human employees to improve service efficiency
and effectiveness, and offer customized service, thereby enhancing the actors’ capabilities to
co-create value. The current study focuses on service robots that substitute FLEs in
restaurants. In this context, value facilitation refers to service robots providing support and
facilitating restaurant guests’ value co-creation activities. More specifically, service robots
can facilitate guest value co-creation through enabling (e.g. offering access to resources,
information and assistance) and enhancing (e.g. providing personalized recommendations
and solutions) activities (Grönroos, 2007). For example, service robots in restaurants can
help guests co-create value by offering information before purchase and assisting them
during service encounters. They can also detect and recognize guests’ gestures and words,
monitor and classify their behaviors, learn their preferences and favored topics, assess their
intent and social cues, as well as measure their facial expressions and feedback (Lin and
Mattila, 2021; Tuomi et al., 2021).
Previous studies in the hospitality literature have identified service robots’ attributes that
can help to increase their acceptability. In the full-service hotel context, Qiu et al. (2020)
demonstrated that perceived humanlike and intelligence of service robots positively
influence customer–robot rapport building. Lee et al. (2021) demonstrated that both
functional elements (performance expectations, facilitating conditions and perceived
importance) and emotional elements (innovativeness, social presence and hedonistic
motivations) affect hotel guests’ perceptions of robots. More recently, Lin and Mattila (2021)
found that perceived privacy, functional benefits and robot appearance positively affect
customers’ attitudes toward adopting service robots. The studies discussed above have
focused on the influence of service robot attributes on their adoption or acceptability.
However, the guest value co-creation process entails a high level of interaction in which
service robots’ activities should align with the specific goals and resources of guests (Qiu
et al., 2020). As value co-creation involves active participation of guests and their
collaboration with service robots, it is critical to identify service robot attributes that
 c et al., 2018).
facilitate value co-creation in guest-robot encounters (Cai

3. Study 1: qualitative study on service robot attributes in the value facilitation

function
As no research has been identified on the service robots’ attributes that influence their value
facilitation in the guest value co-creation process in the restaurant context, a qualitative
study was conducted to explore what attributes of service robots would allow guests to
IJCHM actively cooperate and interact with them in co-creating the restaurant experience. This
34,5 qualitative investigation used an open-ended interpretivist approach.

3.1 Procedure
The snowball sampling method was used to recruit participants. Seed informants were
recruited through social media from the authors’ personal and professional networks based
2008 on the selection criteria that they had visited a restaurant where robots provided customer
service in the past six months. Additional respondents were identified through referrals
from seed informants. In total, 13 respondents who met the criteria were invited to
participate in the study. Among them, ten respondents took part in the telephone interview.
Further, 60% of respondents were male, with the majority between 31 and 50 years of age,
working and having visited the restaurant with friends and family. These respondents
reported visiting the Haidilao Hotpot restaurant, the Foodom restaurant and the Yan Yang
Tian restaurant where robots served customers.
All interviews were conducted in Chinese and translated into English for analysis and
reporting. Each interview lasted 50–75 min. The respondents were asked about their
experience and engagement with the service robot(s), the role of the service robot(s) in
restaurant service delivery, their expectations of service robots and the service robots’
performance, as well as their overall evaluation of service robots in creating a memorable
restaurant experience. They were also requested to provide details regarding any challenges
they encountered when interacting with the service robots. These open-ended questions
were designed to allow respondents to provide responses based on their own experiences,
which results in a complete and diverse set of opinions.

3.2 Findings
The open-ended responses were coded into themes and subthemes discussed below. The
data analysis revealed that the guest evaluation of service robots in the restaurant could be
organized into four major themes, including their experience with service robots, service
robots’ value facilitation, service robots’ attributes and interaction comfort.
3.2.1 Theme 1: experience with service robots. The respondents considered their
experience with service robots in the restaurant as “unique,” “novel,” “memorable” and
“extraordinary,” so much so that they remembered the service robot encounter more vividly
than other restaurant experiences. For example, one respondent (R5) stated that “This is
more exciting and memorable than my past restaurant experiences.” Another respondent (R3)
noted that “The robots made my restaurant experience one-of-a-kind, and I like it.” The
respondents also depicted how their experience with service robots emerged. As one
respondent (R5) described: “When we had a need, we pressed a button and a robot
immediately came to us. This robot helped us place the order and then left.” Some respondents
even made deliberate efforts to interact with the service robots. For example, a respondent
(R8) stated that “My kids had a great time in that restaurant [. . .]. I attempted to talk with the
robot, which my kids found quite funny.”
3.2.2 Theme 2: service robots’ value facilitation. The respondents reported how service
robots facilitated their restaurant experience. Comments about robots supporting value co-
creation include: “We enjoyed our meals more because of the robot service” (R1) and “The
service was quick because of the robots [. . .] We did not expect such amazing service” (R4).
Another respondent (R5) noted that “The food and ambiance were good and the concept of
robots delivering food made the whole experience more interesting.” A few respondents
mentioned that robots were “entertaining” and kept them engaged. For example, a
respondent (R6) stated that “It was an amazing and fun experience [. . .] the whole setup was Robots at your
incredibly entertaining and the robots were funny.” service
3.2.3 Theme 3: service robots’ attributes. The coding of the interview responses
indicated six attributes of service robots that influenced the guest’s restaurant experience.
They are competence, role significance, social presence, warmth, autonomy and
adaptability.
3.2.3.1 Competence. The competence of service robots in delivering services was
mentioned by the respondents. For instance, one respondent (R1) noted that “The robots 2009
brought our food quickly. They moved really fast and would stop whenever they met an
obstacle.” Another respondent (R4) said that “The robots knew what we meant. They took and
delivered our order without fail.” On the other hand, some respondents complained that the
robots were not competent in providing satisfactory service. For example, one respondent
(R10) stated that “The robots did not meet our expectations [. . .]. We followed a robot to the
table, which was moving super slowly [. . .] It did not introduce the cuisine to us properly [. . .].
At another table, a robot malfunctioned and spinned in circles. A human waiter had to reset it.”
3.2.3.2 Role significance. According to some respondents, the service robot’s role was
meaningful in their restaurant experience. For example, one respondent (R4) noted that “The
robots delivered everything at the restaurant [. . .]. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience because
of them.” Another respondent (R7) described, “Using robots to serve food is novel. Although I
traveled a long distance to this restaurant, I found it worthwhile.” On the other hand, some
respondents reported that the robots were used as a gimmick and hence were not important
to their restaurant experience. For example, a respondent (R6) noted that “The robots were
just for show [. . .] They did not help us in any way. Why did the restaurant use these robots?
That’s a waste of money.”
3.2.3.3 Social presence. It is apparent from the interviews that a robot’s physical and non-
physical features can influence guest interaction and engagement with it. A respondent (R4)
noted that “The robot had a smiling face and arms, which made it look like us humans. I felt at
ease interacting with them.” Another respondent (R8) described that “The voice of the robot
was soft and sweet. That was lovely. My kids wanted to interact with the robot all the time.” A
respondent (R7) stated that “The robot had blinking animated eyes. I couldn’t stop giggling
when looking at it. That was pleasant.” However, another respondent (R9) did not like the
appearance of the service robot, saying that “A metallic robot with a computer screen on top
greeted us at the entrance. It looked dull.”
3.2.3.4 Autonomy. The guest perception that the robot can perform its service tasks
effectively and efficiently without human employee involvement may determine the
interaction outcomes. A respondent (R8) noted that “The robot took our order, delivered food
to our table, and asked us if we needed anything else. It did all without any assistance.” By
contrast, another respondent (R9) said that “The food was delivered to our table by a robot but
served by a human waiter. It would have been much better if this restaurant were completely
true to its theme.” This respondent also commented that “The robot performed simple tasks
and required human employees’ assistance. But I expected it to be more independent so that it
could interact better with us.”
3.2.3.5 Warmth. When guests found the service robots to be warm, friendly and caring,
they were more likely to develop feelings of admiration and engage in approach behaviors.
A respondent (R7) noted that “The robot was very polite, which made me willing to speak with
it [. . .] I am satisfied with that restaurant.” Another respondent (R3) said that “The service
robot attempted to be sweet and nice, and it was singing when leading us to our seats.” On the
contrary, one respondent (R10) noted that “It was stiff, unwelcoming, and did not respond
properly.”
IJCHM 3.2.3.6 Adaptability. The respondents mentioned the flexibility and agility of service robots
34,5 in meeting their needs as a factor that affects their interactions. For example, a respondent (R7)
noted that “As I did not like coriander in my food, I said this to the robot. It recorded and met my
special need.” By contrast, one respondent (R10) commented that “We wanted to sit at the corner
because that’s quieter, but the robot did not understand what we were saying and led us to a table
surrounded by many tables. That was a noisy area in the restaurant.”
2010 3.2.4 Theme 4. interaction comfort. According to a few guests, because they did not deal
with service robots on a regular basis, they were not comfortable when interacting with
them in the restaurant. For example, a respondent (R2) stated that “That was my first time to
face a robot in the restaurant [. . .] At first, I was a bit nervous, as I didn’t know what to say to
it or how to order food.” Another respondent noted (R6) that “We found it hard to make
ourselves understood by the robot. It took us a lot of time to explain what we wanted, but it still
did not understand what we meant. That was tiring.”

3.3 Discussion
The qualitative study provides critical insights into the guest’s interaction experience with
service robots in the restaurant. According to the study findings, six service robot attributes
(i.e. competence, role significance, social presence, warmth, autonomy and adaptability)
facilitate the restaurant guest’s value co-creation. The qualitative study helped us develop a
conceptual model to understand the service robot value facilitation and guest value co-
creation in the restaurant setting.

4. Hypotheses development
Based on the evidence from the qualitative study and the literature on value co-creation and
service robots, we propose that service robot attributes, including role significance,
competence, social presence, autonomy, warmth and adaptability, determine service robot
value facilitation, which influences guest value co-creation and their advocacy intentions.
Furthermore, guest interaction comfort moderates the impact of service robot value
facilitation on guest value co-creation. Figure 1 shows the conceptual model.

Role Interaction
significance comfort

Competence
H4
Social
presence Service robot H2
H1 Guest value co- Advocacy
value creation intention
facilitation H3
Autonomy

Warmth

Adaptability H3: Mediation

Notes: Constructs in the dotted box denote operationalization of

the higher-order construct of value facilitation with first-order
Figure 1. dimensions
Conceptual model
Source: Direct effect:; Indirect effect:; Moderation effect:
4.1 Role of service robot value facilitation on guest value co-creation Robots at your
The qualitative study findings suggest that service robot attributes, including role service
significance, competence, social presence, autonomy, warmth and adaptability, play a
critical role in facilitating guest value co-creation in the restaurant. Given that the restaurant
experience is a multi-stage process involving numerous service interactions between the
service robot and the guest (Tuomi et al., 2021), we conceptualize that the service robot could
facilitate guest value co-creation by orchestrating these attributes. Thus, service robot value
facilitation is considered as a higher-order construct with six attribute dimensions: role
2011
significance, competence, social presence, autonomy, warmth and adaptability. In the
following sections, we will discuss how each attribute may facilitate value co-creation
during the guest-robot restaurant encounter.
Perceived role significance is the extent to which customers consider the role of service
robots in a service encounter as significant, relevant and meaningful (Wu et al., 2021). To
co-create value, both the customer and the service provider must engage in an active and
high-quality interaction (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Thus, using a robot in a service
function where it is visible to customers may provide opportunities for customer
involvement, facilitating value co-creation and customer experience. For example, a service
robot capable of interacting with guests, taking orders and answering questions can create
an appealing experience and facilitate guest value co-creation. On the other hand, when
restaurants use robots in roles that need little or no customer interaction or for mundane
tasks, it may have a detrimental impact on the guest experience. For example, Ivanov and
Webster (2019) found that appropriate use of robots in restaurant roles positively influences
guests’ intentions to use service robots. More recently, Wu et al. (2021) demonstrated that
robotic involvement in the service encounter determines consumption values.
Perceived competence is a service robot attribute that gives customers the impression
that the service robot is competent, efficacious and skilled in completing tasks in a service
encounter (Kim et al., 2019). Previous research suggests that service robots that display
competence are more positively viewed by customers (Cai  c et al., 2019). In this study, we
propose that the ability of the service robot to fulfill its frontline role effectively is a vital
attribute for guests to realize the value of a restaurant service encounter. This is because, if
guests know that a service robot can perform effectively and consistently without making
mistakes, they will anticipate the services delivered by the robot to meet their expectations.
As a result, they are more likely to trust the service robot and participate in the value
co-creation process (Roy et al., 2020). Furthermore, guests may feel more relaxed and
appreciate the service experience because competent service robots can save time and effort
(Wu et al., 2021). For example, Belanche et al. (2021) showed that customer perception of
frontline robots’ competence positively influences functional, monetary and emotional value.
The perceived social presence of a service robot is an attribute that leads customers to
feel as if they are in the company of another social entity during service encounters (Romero
and Lado, 2021). Customers will respond socially to service robots that can interact or
behave in humanlike ways, such as listening, speaking and sensing emotions. In the current
study, we propose that perceived social presence of service robots will influence guest value
co-creation in the restaurant context. Customers are more likely to form parasocial
relationships with service robots that have anthropomorphic features and conversation
abilities, as these can foster a sense of social presence in service encounters (Zhang et al.,
2021). Such relationships can reduce ambiguity and risk, thereby increasing trust and
confidence in the ability of service robots to aid in the value co-creation process. For
example, Yoganathan et al. (2021) demonstrated that automated social presence increases
IJCHM expected service quality, willingness to pay and revisit intentions via social-cognitive
34,5 evaluation of service robots.
While service robots are expected to perform tasks autonomously, they may be remotely
operated by humans (Jörling et al., 2019). Perceived autonomy is a service robot attribute
that gives customers the impression that it does not require human (employee) involvement
or support to function effectively during the service encounter (Cai  c et al., 2019). In a
2012 restaurant context, perceived autonomy is reflected in the service robot’s ability to
understand guests’ specific instructions (e.g. requirements about seating and food
preparation), provide specific information and explanations (e.g. nutritional information)
and perform complex tasks (e.g. host). As a high level of autonomy is associated with a
strong sense of responsibility for service outcomes (Cai c et al., 2019), guests are more willing
to collaborate with the service robot and more inclined to engage with it when they perceive
it as operating autonomously, and this facilitates guest value co-creation.
Perceived warmth refers to the extent to which customers perceive the service robot to be
friendly, helpful and well-intentioned during the service encounter (Choi et al., 2019).
Previous research suggests that as the social ability of robots increases, customers are more
likely to regard them as warm, kind and sincere (Cai  c et al., 2019). Furthermore, when robots
are able to communicate their warmth attribute through their affective resources, such cues
encourage guests to anthropomorphize them, thereby influencing the perception of the
robots as responsible, concerned and trustworthy. For example, Zhu and Chang (2020)
demonstrated that robot anthropomorphism positively affects perceived warmth of service
robots. This is because consumers apply social roles and conventions when interacting with
anthropomorphic robots, which results in favorable intentions toward the service robots.
More recently, Belanche et al. (2021) found that perceived warmth of service robots
positively influences emotional service value. Thus, guest perception of the warmth
attribute in service robots facilitates greater interaction and value co-creation.
Perceived adaptability is the service robot attribute that makes customers feel that it is
adaptable and responsive to their needs (Prentice and Nguyen, 2021). The interaction
between the service provider and the customer in the value co-creation process necessitates
that the provider understands the customer and responds to the changes imposed by the
customer. In other words, the outcome of the value co-creation process is determined by the
ability of the service provider to be flexible in satisfying customers’ demands. According to
previous research on technology acceptance, perceived adaptability increases usefulness,
enjoyment and acceptability (Roy et al., 2018). Service robot research suggests that a robot’s
ability to adapt its activities to customers’ preferences and personalities can improve
engagement and acceptability (Mariani and Borghi, 2021). A higher level of adaptability of
service robots can ensure a richer and more personalized customer experience, meeting
customers’ needs more closely and increasing their perception of the service robots’
usefulness. Based on the above discussion, we postulate the following hypothesis:

H1. Service robot value facilitation (determined by guest perception of service robot
attributes including role significance, competence, social presence, warmth,
autonomy and adaptability) positively influences guest value co-creation.

4.2 The mediating role of guest value co-creation

Value co-creation refers to the joint creation of value by the service robot and the guest,
which allows the guest to co-construct the restaurant experience to suit his/her needs (Jiang
et al., 2019). It is the guest’s overall assessment of the interaction with service robots
during the service encounter in a restaurant. Previous research shows that when customers
can co-create value with service providers, they are more likely to enjoy the process, which Robots at your
results in better service performance and favorable word-of-mouth (WOM) communication. service
For example, Balaji and Roy (2017) found that value co-creation perceived by customers
positively influences WOM intentions. More recently, Cheung and To (2020) demonstrated
that customer involvement in the value co-creation process has a positive impact on WOM
intentions. Thus, we hypothesize that when service robots facilitate the value co-creation
process, guests are more likely to favorably evaluate the restaurant, resulting in a higher
intention to engage in advocacy behaviors:
2013

H2. Guest value co-creation positively influences advocacy intentions.

H3. Guest value co-creation mediates the relationship between service robot value
facilitation and advocacy intentions.

4.3 The moderating role of interaction comfort

Customers must feel comfortable with service robots for value co-creation to be successful.
However, as customers are accustomed to face-to-face interactions with human FLEs, they
may experience uncertainty and ambiguity when interacting with service robots. This is
likely to impede customers’ active interaction with service robots in a service encounter (van
Pinxteren et al., 2019). Additionally, the majority of customers still prefer human-led
interaction as they think service robots are less empathetic (Cha, 2020). A recent survey
reported that 61% of internet users felt uncomfortable interacting with service robots
(Amelia et al., 2021). This suggests that guest interaction comfort plays a key role in
determining the success of the value co-creation process. We propose that the guest’s
comfort when interacting with a service robot moderates the relationship between service
robot value facilitation and guest value co-creation. Interaction comfort refers to how
comfortable guests feel when interacting with robots during a service encounter. We
consider interaction comfort as an emotional response resulting from the guests’ prior
experience with service robots or their attitude toward the technology objects, which are
unrelated to the performance or usefulness of service robots at the restaurant.
According to uncertainty reduction theory (Berger and Calabrese, 1975), customers
experience uncertainty when interacting with a new object or in an unfamiliar setting. Given
that using service robots in restaurants is a recent phenomenon, restaurant guests may
experience uncertainty when interacting with these robots. This results in discomfort, which
may impede guests’ engagement in the value co-creation process. However, when guests are
comfortable interacting with service robots, their involvement and collaboration with
service robots in the value co-creation process increases. For example, Park (2020)
demonstrated that situational normality that includes the extent to which tourists are
comfortable interacting with service robots positively affects trust and their intention to
stay at the hotel. Based on the above discussion, we proposed that:

H4. Guest interaction comfort moderates the effect of service robot value facilitation on
guest value co-creation, such that when interaction comfort is high (low), the effect of
service robot value facilitation on guest value co-creation is strengthened (attenuated).

5. Study 2: empirical investigation of the value co-creation process

The objective of Study 2 is to empirically examine the relationship between service robot
value facilitation, guest value co-creation and advocacy intentions (H1, H2 and H3).
IJCHM Furthermore, we examined the moderating role of guest interaction comfort in the
34,5 relationship between service robot value facilitation and guest value co-creation (H4).

5.1 Method
The data was collected in China through a structured online survey. After piloted with 27
university students, the survey questionnaire (following the back-translation method) was
2014 administered to Chinese consumers who had dined in a restaurant where robots provided
customer service. An online snowball sampling technique was used to recruit participants
on WeChat, a popular social media platform in China (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981; Jiang
et al., 2020). The respondents were recruited using a screening question of having dined in a
restaurant where robots offered customer service. Following this, a total of 252 usable
responses were obtained from different regions of China. The sample contains 131 males
(51.98%) and 162 (64.29%) respondents born between 1982 and 2000. The majority of
respondents (80.16%) completed university education or above. Regarding whom they
dined with, most respondents (115, 45.63%) reported that they went to the service robot
restaurant with family members. The respondents’ profile is presented in Table 1.
The study constructs were measured using pre-validated scales adopted from the prior
literature. Wherever appropriate, measurement items for these constructs were changed to
fit the restaurant service robot context (Table 2). Three questions assessing role significance

Characteristic n (%)

Gender
Male 131 51.98
Female 120 47.62
Prefer not to say 1 0.40
Year of birth
1946–1964 29 11.51
1965–1981 45 17.86
1982–2000 162 64.29
After 2000 25 9.92
Education level
High school 27 10.71
2-year technical college 14 5.56
4-year bachelor’s degree 121 48.02
Master’s degree 71 28.17
Doctorate degree 10 3.97
Others 9 3.57
Geographic
Central 20 7.94
East 125 49.60
North 31 12.30
Northeast 11 4.37
South 53 21.03
Southwest 12 4.76
With whom did you visit
Alone 71 28.17
Table 1. Family 115 45.63
Sample profile Friends 60 23.81
(n = 252) Others 6 2.38
Constructs and measures Mean SD FL T
Robots at your
service
Perceived role significance (a = 0.84, CR = 0.91, AVE = 0.76)
PRF1 The service robot role was meaningful 5.79 1.00 0.86** 39.83
PRF2 The service robot role was as expected 5.71 0.99 0.87** 36.79
PRF3 The service robot role was significant 5.85 1.10 0.88** 49.08
Perceived competence (a = 0.80, CR = 0.88, AVE = 0.71)
PC1 I think service robots were competent 5.47 1.10 0.86** 42.5 2015
PC2 I think service robots were reliable 5.41 1.17 0.87** 46.73
PC3 I think service robots were knowledgeable 4.63 1.63 0.81** 39.21
Perceived social presence (a = 0.89, CR = 0.92, AVE = 0.70)
PSP1 I could imagine the service robot to be a living creature 4.05 1.90 0.90** 55.65
PSP2 When interacting with the service robot, I felt I was talking with a 4.24 1.71 0.92** 92.68
real person
PSP3 I felt like the service robot was looking at me throughout the 4.46 1.67 0.88** 49.79
interaction
Perceived autonomy (a = 0.79, CR = 0.88, AVE = 0.71)
PA1 The service robots took initiatives on their own in serving me 5.63 1.20 0.79** 24.78
efficiently
PA2 The service robots worked independently in serving me 5.28 1.37 0.84** 35.42
PA3 The service robots operated autonomously in serving me 5.51 1.14 0.90** 55.73
Perceived warmth (a = 0.89, CR = 0.92, AVE = 0.70)
PW1 The service robots understood me 4.64 1.71 0.83** 35.66
PW2 The service robots were well-intentioned 5.39 1.29 0.82** 29.19
PW3 The service robots were friendly 5.53 1.37 0.83** 30.00
PW4 The service robots were caring 4.46 1.75 0.86** 50.35
PW5 The service robots were warm 4.85 1.64 0.85** 38.48
Perceived adaptability (a = 0.90, CR = 0.94, AVE = 0.83)
PAD1 The service robots were adaptive in meeting a variety of my 5.12 1.42 0.90** 62.12
needs
PAD2 The service robots were flexible in adjusting to meet my new 4.94 1.43 0.94** 107.92
demands
PAD3 The service robots were versatile in addressing my needs 4.97 1.42 0.90** 64.3
Value co-creation (a = 0.84, CR = 0.90, AVE = 0.75)
VCC1 When interacting with service robots, I felt that I participated in 5.27 1.39 0.87** 48.26
creating my own experience
VCC2 When interacting with service robots, I felt a lot of autonomy in 5.33 1.31 0.87** 44.86
creating the consumption experience I wanted
VCC3 When interacting with service robots, I felt that I participated in 5.52 1.19 0.87** 46.88
the process of creating my own experience
Advocacy intention (a = 0.89, CR = 0.93, AVE = 0.81)
AI1 I would say positive things about this restaurant to other people 5.51 1.11 0.92** 89.71
AI2 I would recommend this restaurant to others who seek my advice 5.47 1.21 0.91** 75.34
AI3 I would encourage friends and relatives to visit this restaurant 5.24 1.41 0.87** 34.28
Interaction comfort (a = 0.85, CR = 0.90, AVE = 0.69)
Interacting with service robots makes me feel
CIC1 Unhappy/happy 5.82 1.10 0.88** 40.72
CIC2 Annoyed/pleased 5.75 1.25 0.78** 14.82
CIC3 Unsatisfied/satisfied 5.93 1.11 0.84** 33.68
CIC4 Bored/relaxed 5.47 1.32 0.84** 31.20
Table 2.
Notes: M – mean; SD – standard deviation; FL – factor loading; T – t-statistic; a – Cronbach’s alpha; CR – Measurement model
composite reliability; AVE – average variance extracted. **p < 0.01 results
IJCHM were borrowed from Ho et al. (2020); three items assessing competence were adapted from
 c et al. (2018).
34,5 Kim et al. (2019); social presence was measured using three items from Cai
Three items adapted from Jörling et al. (2019) were used to capture autonomy. The five-item
scale for warmth was adapted from Choi et al. (2019), and the three-item scale for
adaptability was adapted from Prentice and Nguyen (2021). Three items to measure value
co-creation were adapted from Chuah et al. (2021), three items for advocacy intentions were
2016 obtained from Shukla et al. (2016) and interaction comfort was measured with four items
adapted from van Pinxteren et al. (2019). Perceived role significance, competence, social
presence, autonomy, warmth, adaptability, value co-creation and advocacy intentions were
all measured using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Interaction comfort was measured on a seven-point semantic differential
scale (unhappy/happy, annoyed/pleased, unsatisfied/satisfied and bored/relaxed). The
survey questionnaire also included questions about the respondent’s demographic
information.
Both procedural and statistical methods were used to control common method bias
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). In terms of procedural approaches, respondents were guaranteed
anonymity and instructed that there were no right or wrong answers. In terms of statistical
methods, Harman’s single-factor analysis was used, which revealed that the variance
explained by the first factor was 44.75%, less than 50% of the total variance (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). Additionally, the collinearity test showed that the indicators’ variance inflation
factor (VIF) was between 1.78 and 4.17, below the threshold of 5 (Hair et al., 2019). These
findings show that the data are relatively robust against common method bias.
We used the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach and
the SmartPLS 3.0 software to analyze data. The bootstrapping procedure with 5,000
resamples was followed to determine the significance of path coefficients. Following
Sarstedt et al. (2019), we operationalized service robot value facilitation as a higher-order
reflective construct indicated by six first-order constructs, namely, role significance,
competence, social presence, autonomy, warmth and adaptability. The mediating role of
guest value co-creation was tested using SmartPLS 3.0, while the moderating effect of
interaction comfort was assessed using the PROCESS macro (Model 1) in SPSS 25.0 (Hayes,
2018).

5.2 Findings
The measurement model was assessed with the first-order constructs (Table 2). All factor
loadings of the first-order model were above 0.70, and the majority were above 0.80 at a
significance level p < 0.01 (Hair et al., 2019). Composite reliability (CR) and average variance
extracted (AVE) values were above the threshold of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively,
demonstrating convergent validity of the first-order factors (Hair et al., 2019).
We tested the discriminant validity of the first-order constructs using the method
proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981). As shown in Table 3, each construct’s square root
of AVE is higher than all the inter-correlations it shares with other constructs. Additionally,
all HTMT values are below the conservative threshold of 0.90, showing adequate
discriminant validity of the first-order constructs (Hair et al., 2019). These findings support
the psychometric properties of the measures.
Regarding the higher-order construct of value facilitation, the bootstrapping critical
ratios (t > 1.96) indicate the significance of the reflective outer-measurement model. The
factor loadings from each of the first-order dimensions to the higher-order value facilitation
constructs are shown in Figure 2, ranging between 0.71 (role significance) and 0.90
(warmth). Table 2 shows that the CRs and AVEs of the first-order dimensions exceed the
Constructs M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Robots at your
service
1. Role significance 5.78 0.90 0.87 0.58 0.32 0.72 0.57 0.48 0.62 0.64 0.52
2. Competence 5.17 1.10 0.61 0.84 0.64 0.68 0.75 0.70 0.73 0.62 0.40
3. Social presence 4.25 1.60 0.32 0.69 0.91 0.43 0.73 0.66 0.53 0.52 0.25
4. Autonomy 5.47 1.04 0.75 0.69 0.41 0.84 0.61 0.68 0.63 0.65 0.50
5. Warmth 4.97 1.30 0.56 0.76 0.74 0.60 0.84 0.66 0.64 0.57 0.38
6. Adaptability 5.01 1.30 0.48 0.69 0.66 0.69 0.65 0.91 0.62 0.58 0.37 2017
7. Value co-creation 5.45 1.03 0.64 0.71 0.53 0.66 0.63 0.65 0.87 0.60 0.49
8. Advocacy intention 5.38 1.12 0.62 0.61 0.51 0.62 0.55 0.57 0.64 0.90 0.45
9. Interaction comfort 5.74 1.00 0.51 0.38 0.25 0.47 0.37 0.36 0.47 0.44 0.83

Notes: The italicized values in the diagonal are square roots of AVE. And, the significance for italic data as
p < 0.05. Values below the diagonal are correlations between constructs. Values above the diagonal are the Table 3.
hetertrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) Discriminant validity

Role significance
(R 2 = 0.50)

Competence
(R 2 = 0.78)

Social presence
(R 2 = 0.66)
Service robot
value facilitation
Autonomy
(R 2 = 0.64)

Figure 2.
Warmth
(R 2 = 0.81) Second-order service
robot value
facilitation
Adaptability
(R 2 = 0.71) operationalization

threshold of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively. R2 values for first-order dimensions are greater than
0.50. These findings support a higher-order operationalization of service robot value
facilitation (Roy et al., 2017).
The fit of the structural model was assessed using the R2 coefficient. About 57% of the
variance in value co-creation and 54% of the variance in advocacy intentions were explained
by value facilitation (large effect size, > 0.26, Cohen, 1992). Based on these R2 values, the
structural model (Hair et al., 2019) adequately represents the data. For the endogenous
variables, the average variance accounted for (AVA) is 56%, larger than the cut-off of 0.10
(Falk and Miller, 1992). As a result, it seems appropriate to examine the significance of the
relationships between exogenous and endogenous constructs. The blindfolding results
indicate that the cross-validated community (H2) for value co-creation (0.42) and advocacy
intentions (0.41) is well above the threshold of 0.35 (Hair et al., 2017). Moreover, the research
model has a goodness of fit (GoF) index of 0.49, higher than the threshold value of 0.36
(Wetzels et al., 2009). This indicates a good fit and significant predictive significance for the
model (Hair et al., 2017).
IJCHM The results of the structural model are presented in Figure 3. Higher-order service robot
34,5 value facilitation has a positive impact on guest value co-creation ( b = 0.75, p < 0.01),
supporting H1. Guest value co-creation has a positive impact on advocacy intentions ( b =
0.30, p < 0.05). This supports H2.
H3 was supported as guest value co-creation significantly mediates the relationship between
service robot value facilitation and guest advocacy intentions (indirect = 0.18, p < 0.01).
2018 The results of PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2018) using mean-centering for
continuous independent and moderating variables revealed a positive interaction
effect between service robot value facilitation and interaction comfort on guest value
co-creation ( b = 0.08. p < 0.05). The results of the Johnson–Neyman analysis show
that when interaction comfort is greater than 1.15 (99.60% of the respondents), service
robot value facilitation has a significant positive impact on value co-creation. This
supports H4.

5.3 Discussion
The study findings demonstrate that service robot attributes including role significance,
competence, social presence, autonomy, warmth and adaptability determine service robot
value facilitation, which positively influences guest advocacy intentions through guest
value co-creation. Additionally, guest interaction comfort moderates the effect of service
robot value facilitation on guest value co-creation.

6. Discussion and conclusions

6.1 Conclusion
In recent years, the use of robots to serve guests in restaurants has been growing. Several
restaurants use service robots for various tasks, including serving, cooking, cleaning and
welcoming guests (Christou et al., 2020; Seyitog
lu and Ivanov, 2020). Given the increasing
use of service robots in restaurants, it is necessary to understand how service robots may be
leveraged to provide superior customer value (Lin and Mattila, 2021). However, the role of
service robots in the customer value co-creation process remained unexplored in hospitality
research (Tuomi et al., 2021). The current study addresses this research gap by investigating
the effects of service robot value facilitation on guest value co-creation and advocacy
intentions. Furthermore, because research on customer experience with service robots is
still in its infancy (Kuo et al., 2017), we examined the moderating role of guest
interaction comfort in the relationship between service robot value facilitation and guest
value co-creation.
In the present study, a mixed-methods research approach was adopted with an
exploratory qualitative research study, followed by a quantitative study. The qualitative

Interaction
comfort

H4: β = 0.08,
p < 0.05

H3: indirect = 0.18, p < 0.01

Figure 3.
Service Guest value Advocacy
Structural model robot value co-creation H2: β = 0.30, intention
results facilitation H1: β = 0.75,
p < 0.05
p < 0.01
study was conducted to understand the guest value co-creation process and to identify Robots at your
service robot attributes that influence their value facilitation role in the guest-robot value co- service
creation process. The findings of the qualitative study revealed that six service robot
attributes, including role significance, competence, social presence, autonomy, warmth and
adaptability, are critical in facilitating the guest experience during the value co-creation
process in the restaurant. While the identification of service robot attributes such as
competence, warmth and social presence is consistent with the past research (Belanche et al.,
2021; Chang and Kim, 2022; Yoganathan et al., 2021), autonomy, adaptability and role
2019
significance have received less attention in the previous literature. Furthermore, the findings
reveal that guest interaction comfort plays a key role in determining guest interaction with
service robots in restaurants.
Following this, a quantitative inquiry was carried out to test the role of service robot
value facilitation (determined by the six attributes) on guest value co-creation and
advocacy intentions. We also proposed that guest interaction comfort moderates the
impact of service robot value facilitation on guest value co-creation. The study findings
revealed that service robot attributes, including competence, role significance, warmth,
social presence, adaptability and autonomy, determine value facilitation. This extends
recent studies on service robot attributes that aid in customer value co-creation (Akdim
et al., 2021; Belanche et al., 2021; Qiu et al., 2020). Additionally, guest value co-creation
mediates the effect of value facilitation on advocacy intentions (H1 and H2). This
enriches the literature on the perceived value of service robots in service contexts (Lin
and Mattila, 2021). Finally, the moderating role of guest interaction comfort (H3)
complements recent studies on the customer experience with service robots (van
Pinxteren et al., 2019).

6.2 Theoretical implications

The study findings contribute to the hospitality literature in several ways. First, existing
research in service marketing and hospitality management emphasizes the need to
understand the adoption of self-service technologies and particularly service robots (Pillai
and Sivathanu, 2020; Tuomi et al., 2021). The current study responds to this research call by
empirically investigating the role of service robots in the restaurant guest value co-creation
process. Second, given the growing need for contactless services, robots are increasingly
used in the hospitality sector to serve guests (Jiang and Wen, 2020). As this is a significant
investment, it is critical to understand how service robots can improve customer value and
guest experience (Lin and Mattila, 2021). Furthermore, there is a gap in understanding the
role of technology in the value co-creation process from the customer’s perspective (Lei et al.,
2019).
We contribute to this body of knowledge by exploring how service robots aid guest value
co-creation. Third, while recent studies have acknowledged the role of service robots in
customer value co-creation, research on service robot attributes that facilitate customer
value co-creation is limited (Law et al., 2022; Lei et al., 2019). According to our study
findings, guest perceptions of service robot attributes (i.e. competence, social presence,
warmth, role significance, autonomy and adaptability) play an important role in
determining the value they realize from service encounters with robots. Finally, recent
studies suggest that interaction comfort is a critical factor that influences customer
interaction with new technologies (Mariani and Borghi, 2021). The current study contributes
to this stream of literature by investigating the moderating role of guest interaction comfort
in their value co-creation with service robots.
IJCHM 6.3 Managerial implications
34,5 The present study identified six attributes of service robots (role significance, competence,
social presence, autonomy, warmth and adaptability) to be considered in the robot design to
improve their value facilitation potential and support guest value co-creation. This typology
of service robot attributes offers strategic guidance for deploying service robots in
restaurants. According to our findings, service robots should not be a show or gimmick.
2020 Instead, they should be designed to fulfill service functions independently and be
meaningful in the guest’s dining experience, as role significance, competence, autonomy are
factors of service robot value facilitation. In terms of competence, restaurant managers
should ensure that service robots are programmed to be knowledgeable of the menu, the
ingredients, the level of nutrition and calories in the cuisine and even a story behind a
particular dish so that they are competent in answering guests’ queries. Autonomy requires
that service robots operate autonomously and take the initiative in serving guests. To this
end, restaurant managers should redesign the service procedure and restructure the service
team according to the strengths and weaknesses of service robots and human employees at
each service encounter so as to ensure the autonomy of service robots for certain functions
(e.g. food delivery) and seamless human–robot collaboration for other functions (e.g. service
recovery).
Considering that adaptability contributes to service robot value facilitation, service
robots need to be flexible in meeting guest demands. Therefore, they should be programmed
to process the new information input from guests and adjust their behaviors accordingly.
Furthermore, service robots are expected to understand guests and be friendly, caring and
empathetic, as perceived warmth is another factor of service robot value facilitation. Apart
from their functions, service robots’ appearance design is equally important, as social
presence was found to determine service robot value facilitation. Given this,
anthropomorphic features (e.g. smiling face) and conversation abilities (e.g. soft and sweet
voice) can be incorporated into the design of frontline service robots to make them look and
talk like humans, improving their likability. Furthermore, the significant role of interaction
comfort suggests that restaurant managers should provide clear instructions to inform
guests how to interact with service robots, as well as design pleasant physical surroundings
to improve the comfort of guests in their interaction with service robots.

6.4 Limitations and future research directions

Despite the interesting findings, this study has certain limitations that may provide avenues
for further research. First, the data collected in this study came from guests who dined at
service robot restaurants in China. As a result, future research can test the study findings in
other countries and different settings, such as hotels, tourism destinations and
supermarkets. Second, researchers are encouraged to broaden the scope of this study by
examining the effects of service robot attributes (e.g. social presence, autonomy) on post-
consumption outcomes, such as continuous intentions following value co-creation or
value co-destruction encounters with service robots in restaurants. Third, given that
prior customer experience may influence the perceived value in service encounters, and that
customer adoption of service robots is influenced by demographic characteristics, future
research can consider multiple customer groups for comparison purposes. Finally, the
present study examined the value co-creation process when service robots substitute the role
of human employees in the restaurant. Future studies should look at the value co-creation
process in which service robots complement human employees in offering restaurant
services to guests.
References Robots at your
Akdim, K., Belanche, D. and Flavian, M. (2021), “Attitudes toward service robots: analyses of explicit service
and implicit attitudes based on anthropomorphism and construal level theory”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi:
10.1108/IJCHM-12-2020-1406.
Albrecht, C. (2019), “Report: food robotics market to hit $3.1 billion by 2025”, The Spoon, available at:
https://thespoon.tech/report-food-robotics-market-to-hit-3-1-billion-by-2025/
Amelia, A., Mathies, C. and Patterson, P.G. (2021), “Customer acceptance of frontline service robots
2021
in retail banking: a qualitative approach”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 321-341, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-10-2020-0374.
Balaji, M.S. and Roy, S.K. (2017), “Value co-creation with internet of things technology in the
retail industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2, pp. 7-31, doi: 10.1080/
0267257X.2016.1217914.
Belanche, D., Casalo, L.V., Schepers, J. and Flavian, C. (2021), “Examining the effects of robots’ physical
appearance, warmth, and competence in frontline services: the humanness-value-loyalty model”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 2357-2376, doi: 10.1002/mar.21532.
Berger, C.R. and Calabrese, R.J. (1975), “Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a
developmental theory of interpersonal communication”, Human Communication Research,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 99-112, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x.
Biernacki, P. and Waldorf, D. (1981), “Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain
referral sampling”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 141-163, doi: 10.1177/
004912418101000205.
 c, M., Mahr, D. and Oderkerken-Schröder, G. (2019), “Value of social robots in services: social
Cai
cognition perspective”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 463-478, doi: 10.1108/
JSM-02-2018-0080.
 c, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Mahr, D. (2018), “Service robots: value co-creation and
Cai
co-destruction in elderly care networks”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 178-205, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-07-2017-0179.
Cha, S.S. (2020), “Customers’ intention to use robot-serviced restaurants in Korea: relationship of
coolness and MCI factors”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 2947-2968, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2020-0046.
Chang, W. and Kim, K.K. (2022), “Appropriate service robots in exchange and communal relationships”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 141, pp. 462-474, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.044.
Cheung, M.F.Y. and To, W.M. (2020), “The effects of customer involvement on perceived service
performance and word-of-mouth: the mediating role of service co-creation”, Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1014-1032, doi: 10.1108/APJML-04-2020-0221.
Choi, S., Liu, S.Q. and Mattila, A.S. (2019), “‘How may I help you?’ Says a robot: examining language
styles in the service encounter”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 82,
pp. 32-38, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.03.026.
Christou, P., Simillidou, A. and Stylianou, M.C. (2020), “Tourists’ perceptions regarding the use of
anthropomorphic robots in tourism and hospitality”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 3665-3683, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-
05-2020-0423.
Chuah, S.H.W., Aw, E.C.X. and Cheng, C.F. (2021), “A silver lining in the COVID-19 cloud: examining
customers’ value perceptions, willingness to use and pay more for robotic restaurants”, Journal
of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 49-76, doi: 10.1080/
19368623.2021.1926038.
Cohen, J. (1992), “A power primer”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 155-159, doi: 10.1037//0033-
2909.112.1.155.
IJCHM Doborjeh, Z., Hemmington, N., Doborjeh, M. and Kasabov, N. (2022), “Artificial intelligence: a systematic
review of methods and applications in hospitality and tourism”, International Journal of Contemporary
34,5 Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 1154-1176, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2021-0767.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of Akron Press, Akron, Ohio.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50,
doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104.
2022
Grönroos, C. (2007), Service Management and Marketing: Customer Management in Service
Competition, 3rd ed., Wiley, Blackwell, Chichester.
Grönroos, C. and Gummerus, J. (2014), “The service revolution and its marketing implications: service
logic vs service-dominant logic”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 206-229,
doi: 10.1108/MSQ-03-2014-0042.
Guan, X., Gong, J., Li, M. and Huan, T.-C. (2021), “Exploring key factors influencing customer
behavioral intention in robot restaurants”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2021-0807.
Hair, J.F, Jr., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Gudergan, S.P. (2017), Advanced Issues in Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F, Jr, Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24, doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), “Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: quantification, inference,
and interpretation”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 4-40, doi: 10.1080/
03637751.2017.1352100.
Ho, T.H., Tojib, D. and 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, Vol. 87, p. 102501, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102501.
Hwang, J., Park, S. and Kim, I. (2020), “Understanding motivated consumer innovativeness in the
context of a robotic restaurant: the moderating role of product knowledge”, Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, Vol. 44, pp. 272-282, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.003.
India Today. (2019), “In this Chennai restaurant robot waiters serve customers, speak to them in Tamil
and English”, available at: www.indiatoday.in/india/story/in-this-chennai-restaurant-robot-
waiters-serve-customers-speak-to-them-in-tamil-and-english-1449122-2019-02-06
Ivanov, S. and Webster, C. (2019), “Perceived appropriateness and intention to use service robots in
tourism”, in Pesonen, J. and Neidhardt, J. (Eds), Information and Communication Technologies in
Tourism 2019, Springer, Cham, pp. 237-248.
Jiang, Y. and Wen, J. (2020), “Effects of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: a perspective
article”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 8,
pp. 2563-2573, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2020-0237.
Jiang, Y., Balaji, M.S. and Jha, S. (2019), “Together we tango: value facilitation and customer
participation in Airbnb”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 82, pp. 169-180,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.05.004.
Jiang, Y., Rao, Y., Balaji, M.S. and Xu, D. (2020), “Travel posts on WeChat moments: a model for
eWOM effectiveness”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 123-136, doi: 10.3727/
108354220X15758301241693.
Jörling, M., Böhm, R. and Paluch, S. (2019), “Service robots: drivers of perceived responsibility for
service outcomes”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 404-420, doi: 10.1177/
1094670519842334.
Kim, J.J., Choe, J.Y. and Hwang, J. (2021), “Application of consumer innovativeness to the context of
robotic restaurants”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 224-242, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2020-0602.
Kim, S.Y., Schmitt, B.H. and Thalmann, N.M. (2019), “Eliza in the uncanny valley: anthropomorphizing Robots at your
consumer robots increases their perceived warmth but decreases liking”, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1007/s11002-019-09485-9.
service
Kuo, C.-M., Chen, L.C. and Tseng, C.Y. (2017), “Investigating an innovative service with hospitality
robots”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 1305-1321, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2015-0414.
Law, R., Ye, H. and Chan, I.C.C. (2022), “A critical review of smart hospitality and tourism research”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 623-641, 2023
doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2021-0986.
Lee, W. and Ko, Y.D. (2021), “Operation policy of multi-capacity logistic robots in hotel industry”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1482-1506,
doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2020-0372.
Lee, Y., Lee, S. and Kim, D.Y. (2021), “Exploring hotel guests’ perceptions of using robot assistants”,
Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 37, p. 100781, doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100781.
Lei, S.I., Wang, D. and Law, R. (2019), “Hoteliers’ service design for mobile-based value co-creation”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 4338-4356,
doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2018-0249.
Lin, I.Y. and Mattila, A.S. (2021), “The value of service robots from the hotel guest’s perspective: a
mixed-method approach”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 94, p. 102876,
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102876.
McCartney, G. and McCartney, A. (2020), “Rise of the machines: towards a conceptual service-robot
research framework for the hospitality and tourism industry”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 3835-3851, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-
2020-0450.
Mariani, M. and Borghi, M. (2021), “Customers’ evaluation of mechanical artificial intelligence in
hospitality services: a study using online reviews analytics”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 3956-3976, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-
2020-0622.
Park, S. (2020), “Multifaceted trust in tourism service robots”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 81,
p. 102888, doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2020.102888.
Pillai, R. and Sivathanu, B. (2020), “Adoption of AI-based chatbots for hospitality and tourism”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 3199-3226,
doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2020-0259.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value
creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14, doi: 10.1002/dir.20015.
Prentice, C. and Nguyen, M. (2021), “Robotic service quality-scale development and validation”, Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 62, p. 102661, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102661.
Qiu, H., Li, M., Shu, B. and Bai, B. (2020), “Enhancing hospitality experience with service robots: the
mediating role of rapport building”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 247-268, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2019.1645073.
Romero, J. and Lado, N. (2021), “Service robots and COVID-19: exploring perceptions of prevention
efficacy at hotels in Generation Z”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 4057-4078, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2020-1214.
Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Quazi, A. and Quaddus, M. (2018), “Predictors of customer acceptance of and
resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 42, pp. 147-160, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.02.005.
IJCHM Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Soutar, G. and Jiang, Y. (2020), “The antecedents and consequences of value
co-creation behaviors in a hotel setting: a two-country study”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
34,5 Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 353-368, doi: 10.1177/1938965519890572.
Roy, S.K., Balaji, M.S., Sadeque, S., Nguyen, B. and Melewar, T.C. (2017), “Constituents and
consequences of smart customer experience in retailing”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 124, pp. 257-270, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.022.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F, Jr, Cheah, J.H., Becker, J.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “How to specify, estimate,
2024 and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 197-211, doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003.
glu, F. and Ivanov, S. (2020), “A conceptual framework of the service delivery system design for
Seyito

hospitality firms in the (post-) viral world: the role of service robots”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 91, p. 102661, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102661.
Shukla, P., Banerjee, M. and Singh, J. (2016), “Customer commitment to luxury brands: antecedents
and consequences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 323-331, doi: 10.1016/j.
jbusres.2015.08.004.
Tuomi, A., Tussyadiah, I.P. and Stienmetz, J. (2021), “Applications and implications of service
robots in hospitality”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 232-247, doi: 10.1177/
1938965520923961.
van Pinxteren, M.M.E., Wetzels, R.W.H., Rüger, J., Pluymaekers, M. and Wetzels, M. (2019), “Trust in
humanoid robots: implications for services marketing”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 507-518, doi: 10.1108/JSM-01-2018-0045.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 177-195, doi: 10.2307/20650284.
Wu, L. (2020), “The rise of restaurant robots amidst pandemic measures”, Forbes, available at: www.
forbes.com/sites/lesliewu/2020/09/27/the-rise-of-restaurant-robots-amidst-pandemic-measures/?
sh=70de65864ea3
Wu, L., Fan, A., Yang, Y. and He, Z. (2021), “Robotic involvement in the service encounter: a value-
centric experience framework and empirical validation”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 32
No. 5, pp. 783-812, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-12-2020-0448.
Yoganathan, V., Osburg, V., H. Kunz, W. and Toporowski, W. (2021), “Check-in at the robo-desk: effects
of automated social presence on social cognition and service implications”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 85, p. 104309, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104309.
Zhang, M., Gursoy, D., Zhu, Z. and Shi, S. (2021), “Impact of anthropomorphic features of artificially
intelligent service robots on consumer acceptance: moderating role of sense of humor”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 3883-3905,
doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2020-1256.
Zhu, D.H. and Chang, Y.P. (2020), “Robot with humanoid hands cooks food better? Effect of
robotic chef anthropomorphism on food quality prediction”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 1367-1383, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-
10-2019-0904.

About the authors

Xiya Zhang is a Doctoral Researcher in Marketing at University of Nottingham Business school
China. Her research focuses on digital servitization, digital transformation, service robots and new
emerging economy. Specifically, she focuses on how service innovations such as service robots
influence on customer behavior and business strategies of companies. The author can be contacted at:
Xiya.Zhang@nottingham.edu.cn
 Dr M.S. Balaji is an Associate Professor in Marketing at the University of Nottingham Ningbo Robots at your
China. His research interests include hospitality and tourism management, customer–employee
interaction and customer incivility. He has published over 50 peer-reviewed research papers in a service
number of leading journals, including, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Travel Research, Technology
Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Business Research, European Journal of Marketing,
Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Marketing
Management, Services Industries Journal, Services Business: An International Journal, International
Journal of Hospitality Management and among others. The author can be contacted at:
sathyaprakashbalaji.makam@nottingham.edu.cn
2025
Dr Yangyang Jiang is an Associate Professor in Marketing at Nottingham University Business
School China, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, and Fellow of the Higher Education
Academy. Her research focuses on services marketing, digital marketing, customer experience and
sustainable development. Her research work appears in Journal of Travel Research, Technology
Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, Tourism Recreation Research, Tourism Analysis, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Tourism Review and Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality
Research. Yangyang Jiang is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: yangyang.jiang@
nottingham.edu.cn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com