The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Letting AI
Letting AI make decisions for make decisions
me: an empirical examination of for me

hotel guests’ acceptance of

technology agency
Cristian Morosan Received 30 August 2022
Revised 2 December 2022
Conrad N. Hilton College of Global Hospitality Leadership, 10 March 2023
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA, and 11 April 2023
Accepted 26 April 2023
Aslıhan Dursun-Cengizci
College of Tourism, Antalya Bilim University, Antalya, Turkey and
Conrad N. Hilton College of Global Hospitality Leadership,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine hotel guests’ acceptance of technology agency – the extent to which
they would let artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems make decisions for them when staying in hotels. The
examination was conducted through the prism of several antecedents of acceptance of technology agency,
including perceived ethics, benefits, risks and convenience orientation.
Design/methodology/approach – A thorough literature review provided the foundation of the
structural model, which was tested using confirmatory factor analysis, followed by structural equation
modeling. Data were collected from 400 US hotel guests.
Findings – The most important determinant of acceptance of technology agency was perceived ethics,
followed by benefits. Risks of using AI-based systems to make decisions for consumers had a negative impact
on acceptance of technology agency. In addition, perceived loss of competence and unpredictability had
relatively strong impacts on risks.
Research limitations/implications – The results provide a conceptual foundation for research on
systems that make decisions for consumers. As AI is increasingly incorporated in the business models of
hotel companies to make decisions, ensuring that the decisions are perceived as ethical and beneficial for
consumers is critical to increase the utilization of such systems.
Originality/value – Most research on AI in hospitality is either conceptual or focuses on consumers’ intentions
to stay in hotels that may be equipped with AI technologies. Occupying a unique position within the literature, this
study discusses the first time AI-based systems that make decisions for consumers. The value of this study stems
from the examination of the main concept of technology agency, which was never examined in hospitality.
Keywords Artificial intelligence, Decision-making, Information technology, Hospitality,
Technology agency
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly integrated into hotels’ technology
infrastructure (Gaur et al., 2021). While the literature defines AI broadly, it generally reflects
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
This study is based on a project supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Management
Türkiye (TUBITAK- Project No. 1059B192100499) and the Conrad N. Hilton College of Global Hospitality © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
Leadership, University of Houston. DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-08-2022-1041
IJCHM the simulation of human intelligence by artificial systems to automatically learn and
perform human tasks (Aghaei et al., 2012). Most AI has been deployed in contexts
characterized by intensive two-way interactions between consumers and technology (Li
et al., 2019), but it is making its way into additional managerial areas (Kong et al., 2021).
While consumer-AI interactions are conducive of value (Lalicic and Weismayer, 2021), they
require continuous input from consumers. Such input is required at critical moments during
a consumer’s product experience (e.g. when arriving at the hotel, accessing a guestroom and in
time to make foodservice reservations). Facing increasing choices of product customizations
that are inherently intangible, hotel consumers are likely to encounter choice difficulty that
impacts their cognitive load, which may result in procrastination or other decision deferral
behaviors (Sun et al., 2019). These actions may prevent consumers from achieving the
“frictionless experiences” that they seek in response to hotel marketing, experiences that hotels
strive to design and fulfill.
The rapidly emerging literature on AI applications to services recognizes three distinct
applications of AI:
(1) providing AI recommendations (Kim, 2020);
(2) receiving AI-empowered services (Seytoglu and Ivanov, 2020); and
(3) letting AI make decisions for consumers (Yalcin et al., 2022).

While the initial applications of AI for recommendations dominated the initial AI literature,
a growing body of literature converged toward the notion that AI recommendations, where
consumers only accept system recommendations, improve the value appropriated by
consumers (Kim, 2020). As AI and AI-based service models evolved, the literature
recognized a distinctive class of services. AI-empowered services offered via robot provided
consumers with opportunities for interaction, therefore, facilitating exchanges that
improved value (Wu et al., 2022). Along with the development of AI capable of making
decisions for consumers, a new stream of research is emerging. This research examines the
context in which tasks are delegated to machines, given that the spectrum of tasks capable
of being delegated to AI is increasing while consumers’ attitudes and subsequent behavioral
changes are still not understood (Bertrandias et al., 2021).
This study focuses on a less examined scope of AI – that of making decisions for consumers.
AI can make decisions regarding the automation of legacy tasks and reduce the need for human
input and likelihood of error. Such technologies can be deployed to make decisions for
consumers in ways that add value, increase personalization and create frictionless experiences.
For example, AI can offer unique amenities (Hotellogix, 2022) and make decisions regarding
guestroom features (Ting, 2017) and guestroom assignment based on previous preferences
(Oracle, 2022). Despite the increasing integration of AI, little is known about consumers’ reliance
on AI systems that make decisions for them. This represents a primary research gap. To
understand consumers’ motivations to let AI make decisions for them, this study uses the
concept of technology agency as a focal construct. Technology agency refers to an intelligent
agent’s ability to act independently on behalf of the user (Adams et al., 2022). Yet, to date, the
literature does not offer systematic findings that unequivocally explicate how consumers accept
technology agency. The literature has only offered sporadic insight into the role of AI in
hospitality (Gaur et al., 2021). Thus, addressing this gap would facilitate an understanding of
motivational factors leading to consumers’ accepting technology agency.
While the literature offers insight into the use of AI for various tasks, it remains focused
on system-specific attributes that may influence intentions to use (Cao et al., 2022). Factors
such as performance expectancy or ease of use have been extensively used as predictors of
AI-based systems usage (Ciftci et al., 2021). Yet, scholars called for the utilization of new Letting AI
factors – specific to AI – to explicate consumers’ use of AI (Tussyadiah and Miller, 2019). make decisions
However, there is no insight into the nature and content of decisions made by AI for hotel
consumers, marking a second important research gap. However, a critical consideration in
for me
the context of technology agency is the alignment of the decision of an agent with the
motivations and belief system of the consumer. Addressing this gap, this study uses the
concept of perceived ethics as an antecedent of consumers’ acceptance of technology agency.
By focusing on ethics, this study broadens the scope of understanding consumers’
motivational structures that stimulate AI use.
The deployment of AI within agency-related business models creates situations where
consumers face benefits-risks tradeoffs regarding their reliance on AI decisions. To capture
this tradeoff, this study uses conceptual foundations provided by the agency theory (Lupia,
2001). While the benefits may seem clear due to their manifestation through product
attributes, the risks remain unclear. This marks a third research gap. To address this gap,
this study investigates two antecedents of risk. Perceived loss of competence reflects
consumers’ perceptions of skills loss as they rely on technology for task completion
(Bertrandias et al., 2021). Unpredictability reflects the unknown outcomes of decisions
facilitated by intelligent agents (Holland Michel, 2020). While scholars used multiple
antecedents of risk (e.g. product information, brand familiarity and past experiences)
(Napomuceno et al., 2014), such antecedents illustrate conceptual links between various
types of risks and their antecedents. Such foundations needed to be adapted to the context of
this study. Specifically, perceived loss of competence was included as it reflects consumers’
perceptions of control over task completion, similar to concepts like knowledge learned from past
experiences or owed to their characteristics (Mansfred et al., 2016). Likewise, unpredictability was
included as it reflects consumers’ lack of knowledge regarding AI decisions akin to product/
brand familiarity. The utilization of these two constructs as antecedents of risks offer a nuanced
insight into consumers’ acceptance of technology agency offered by AI.
This study takes place in a contemporary hotel context where two significant factors
converge to shape the outlook of AI in hotels. First, due to the shortage of staff, consumers
may need to rely on information technology to complete tasks or gather information for
decisions (Morosan and Bowen, 2022). Second, in the wake of the global pandemic, hotels
have increasingly relied on autonomous systems to automate consumer-facing tasks.
Against this backdrop, and concurrently addressing the three research gaps, this study’s
goal is to explicate consumers’ acceptance of technology agency when facing AI-based
decisions in hotels. This study follows two objectives:
(1) to clarify the role of perceived ethics in influencing acceptance of technology
agency; and
(2) to examine the antecedents of perceived risks regarding AI in hotels.

The article is organized as follows: the literature review section explains the theoretical
foundation of the study and proposes hypotheses. Subsequently, the methods for instrument
design and data collection are explained. Finally, the discussion section interprets the results
within the contemporary theoretical and practical context. The article concludes with
limitations and future research directions.

Review of literature
Theoretical foundations: technology agency
The hospitality literature has recently recognized the increasing role of AI in the design and
delivery of services (Doborjeh et al., 2022). The AI agents have evolved to make decisions
IJCHM and act on behalf of the users without human intervention, which led to technology agency
(Kennedy and Hidalgo, 2021). Agency reflects the capacity to make decisions and choices,
perform actions and take the responsibility for the actions performed. When a technological
artifact possesses similar agential capacities, i.e. the ability to simulate human decision-
making (Nyholm, 2020) and act independently and proactively on behalf of a human, it
reflects technology agency (Adams et al., 2022). Technology agency is a concept that
extends naturally from the classic agency theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976) and can be
viewed as a subset of human–computer interaction in which the technology acts and makes
decisions for human entities.
The conceptualization of technology agency slightly differs from the earlier conceptualizations
of agency from social sciences, where technology had a limited role (Nevo et al., 2016). The classic
agency theory recognizes that agents and principals may act alongside divergent interests
(Jensen and Meckling, 1976) and use asymmetric information (Bosse and Phillips, 2016). Thus, the
main focus of the theory is prescribing the types of agreements between agents and principals
that would motivate agents to engage in such agreements in ways that add value (Krafft, 1999).
The classic agency theory also recognizes the vulnerability of the principals to moral hazards
arising from the agents’ self-interests (Mishra et al., 1998). The agency theory primarily focuses on
the costs and benefits of the principal–agent relationship (Candrian and Scherer, 2022; Lupia,
2001). Moreover, the principal may not be able to tell whether the agent’s decision is desired (Stout
et al., 2014). The principal may accept the agency based on a cost-benefit analysis, i.e. when the
agent’s capabilities are enough to decrease the risks, the principal may delegate the decision-
making authority to the agent to get over with limited time, skills or other resources (Candrian
and Scherer, 2022).
Over time, the agency theory has provided the conceptual basis and has been adapted to
a variety of research contexts where the principal–agent dyad engages in significant
interactions to appropriate value (Choi et al., 2018). The adaptations resulted in a new stream
of modern research using the concept of agency. Such research retains the main tenet of
agency – that the level of control shifts between the principal and the agent as a result of the
agreement that guides the principal–agent interactions (Tumbat and Grayson, 2016).
Furthermore, the literature documents applications of agency in which agents are willing to
engage in interactions with principals where principals recognize and submit to the agent’s
authority (Tumbat and Grayson, 2016). However, as technology systems are generally
designed to reduce service bottlenecks and assist users in completing tasks, the classic
agency theory was adapted to recognize the circumstances of information technology use.
For example, an essential circumstance of the classic agency theory – principals and agents
having divergent goals – was adapted to recognize the way users delegate tasks to
technology systems.
Autonomous AI-based systems have human-like social intelligence and cognitive
capabilities, facilitating the acceptance of technology agency (Yu et al., 2021). AI-based
agents with autonomous capabilities can process new encounters and learn, evolve and
change (Kennedy and Hidalgo, 2021). They can assist users with tasks based on their
preferences by automating tasks, processing, monitoring and customizing (Ozdemir et al.,
2023). The human can be in, on or off the loop for the decision-making in accordance with
the AI-based agent’s level of autonomy. The human is in the loop when s/he is in full control
to accept the decisions. When the human is on the loop, s/he can override the decision. If the
AI is a fully autonomous system, the human is off the loop, and s/he cannot intervene in the
decision (Ivanov, 2022). In this study, the hotel’s AI-based system was defined as a fully
autonomous agent that keeps the consumers off the loop while making decisions for them
based on the information learned from interactions and preferences.
 Technology agency has been used in various contexts, such as social services (Ranerup Letting AI
and Henriksen, 2022), tourism and hospitality (Bulchand-Gidumal, 2020). It is incorporated make decisions
in many AI solutions, such as autonomous shopping systems (de Bellis and Venkataramani
Johar, 2020), revenue management systems (Ivanov, 2022) and intelligent travel agents
for me
(Bulchand-Gidumal, 2020). For example, Amer and Alqhtani (2019) examined a Guest’s
Smart Agent that decides the access of hotel consumers’ loved ones to the guest room and
offers wake-up services. Leonidis et al. (2013) described an Intelligent Hotel Room system
that tracks consumers and smart in-room objects for addressing automated laundry,
cleaning and room service requests. Users of a fully automated decision-making system are
kept off the decision-making process; that is, users have no control over the algorithms, no
interaction is needed; thus, there is no need to learn how to use the system (Ivanov, 2022).
Essentially, accepting technology agency requires the user to delegate the decision-making
to the agent. The concept of delegation, in which one entity (principal) delegates the
decision-making authority to another (agent), is notably delineated by the agency theory
(Lupia, 2001). Accordingly, in the current study, acceptance of technology agency refers to
letting the AI-based system make decisions on behalf of oneself when staying in hotels.

Extending the theoretical foundations

Human-to-technology relationships are associated with negotiated exchanges where the
costs and benefits shape the principal–agent interaction (Dowling and Nicholson, 2002).
Using an AI agent to decide for users can lead to perceived loss of competence of the system
users (Bertrandias et al., 2021). Multiple other studies have emphasized benefits and risks as
antecedents of technology agency (Ivanov and Umbrello, 2021; Ostrom et al., 2019; Taddeo
and Floridi, 2018). This indicates that hotel consumers often struggle to choose between
various options for food, entertainment, activities, room amenities, etc. The abundance of
alternatives causes the decision-making process to consume energy, time and skills (Tuo
et al., 2021). This may cause service bottlenecks as the consumers need to quickly gather
information to construct their choice mix (Verma, 2010). In such cases, accepting technology
agency provides users with multiple benefits related to decision-making delegation and
customized services (Bulchand-Gidumal, 2020).
Accepting technology agency exhibits risks to a certain degree that may lead to
unintended and harmful consequences (Taddeo and Floridi, 2018). These risks may derive
from the act of delegation (Dowling and Nicholson, 2002) and may relate to accountability
(Stout et al., 2014), loss of control (Yu et al., 2021), security and data privacy risks (Ivanov
and Umbrello, 2021). Personalized service offerings rely on data exchange between hotels
and consumers in every encounter. This might pose possible threats and raise consumers’
concerns about their privacy and misuse of their data (Volchek et al., 2021). Risk perceptions
can also be related to the unpredictability of algorithmic decision-making, alongside a
“black-box process” (Holland Michel, 2020) and the fear of losing knowledge and
competencies (Adams et al., 2022). AI-based systems’ dynamic and evolving nature makes
their actions indeterminate and unpredictable over time (Kennedy and Hidalgo, 2021). Thus,
consumers give up their sequential decision-making processes, e.g. considering nontangible
features and characteristics of the alternatives. When risks increase, the user may avoid
delegating the decision-making authority to the agent (Kishishita, 2020).
Delegating decision-making to a human agent is founded on the notion that its actions
would adhere to rules of ethics (Dowling and Nicholson, 2002). Because of the opacity of the
AI-based decisions (Bulchand-Gidumal, 2020), consumers may question the fairness of AI
decisions. Specifically, the developers of the AI-based system may program the algorithms
to work in favor of hotels (Ivanov, 2022). Accepting technology agency is considered
IJCHM convenient as it saves time/effort (Ostrom et al., 2019). Specifically, accepting a dinner
reservation made by the AI-based system would diminish consumers’ search costs. Hence,
convenience-oriented consumers may find a relative advantage in letting AI make decisions
for them. Thus, two additional independent variables were included in the model:
(1) perceived ethics of the AI-based system, which refers to considering the agent’s
actions as morally acceptable, just and fair (Alimamy and Nadeem, 2021); and
(2) convenience orientation, which reflects the extent to which the user prefers to
complete tasks in the shortest time with minimum energy (Morganosky, 1986).

The study’s conceptual model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Hypotheses development
Perceived ethics. Ethics represents a set of principles or guidelines for judging actions as
morally good or bad (Siau and Wang, 2020). Delegating decision-making authority to human
agents is predicated on the belief that their actions will follow some code of ethics (Dowling
and Nicholson, 2002). AI systems that increasingly support or replace human decision-
making and judgment have an artificial mind that enables them to make autonomous
decisions and behave like human beings (Nath and Sahu, 2020). Therefore, delegating a task
to an AI system would raise similar ethical concerns (Dowling and Nicholson, 2002). AI ethics
have been increasingly discussed in recent studies (Müller, 2021), including in hospitality
(Ivanov and Umbrello, 2021). Hospitality scholars emphasized ethical concerns related to biased
algorithms that may arise from human developers’ involvement (Bulchand-Gidumal, 2020) or
biased training data sets (Davenport et al., 2020). Additionally, transparency (Siau and Wang,
2020) or opacity (Müller, 2021) of the algorithmic-decision making represents further concerns

Figure 1.
Proposed structural
model
related to the black-box systems’ unpredictability (Reis et al., 2020). Hence, users may avoid Letting AI
delegating tasks or decisions to AI-based systems when they perceive the outcomes of the make decisions
algorithm as unethical (Mayer et al., 2020). for me
An AI-based system can be perceived as ethical when its actions are considered morally
acceptable, just and fair (Alimamy and Nadeem, 2021). Likewise, perceived ethics in the
current study refers to hotel customers’ beliefs that the AI-based system follows a moral
code and is fair when making decisions. Studies confirmed that perceived ethics influence
behavioral responses toward technology. For instance, Shin (2020) showed that when the AI-
based recommendation system followed ethical principles (e.g. fairness, accountability,
transparency and explicability), users consider the system more trustworthy and useful.
Additionally, Alimamy and Nadeem (2021) validated a positive relationship between the
perceived ethics of augmented reality technology and value co-creation intentions.
Moreover, multiple studies in the algorithmic bias literature showed that perceived fairness
of algorithmic decision-making influences recommendation acceptance, system appreciation
and adoption (Kordzadeh and Ghasemaghaei, 2022). Thus, the perceived ethics of an AI-
based system may encourage customers to let the intelligent agent make decisions for them.
Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:

H1. Consumers’ perceived ethics of hotel AI-based systems positively influence their
acceptance of technology agency.

Perceived benefits. Perceived benefits reflect beliefs associated with the positive outcomes of
technology adoption (Nanggong and Rahmatia, 2019) and are related to the primary system
perceptions (e.g. ease of use) (Lien et al., 2019). The benefits of using AI-based systems
include tailored hotel experiences that contribute to higher satisfaction levels, enjoyment,
time savings and convenience. For instance, Ostrom et al. (2019) summarized the positive
outcomes of AI-based system adoption as more personalized services, learning and better
time management and, as a result, increased well-being for users. Lalicic and Weismayer
(2021) listed the top four reasons for AI-based system adoption as a convenience, ubiquity,
personalization and super functionality. Moreover, AI-based systems provide services in a
more appealing, engaging and enjoyable manner, increasing users’ value and service quality
perceptions (Ivanov and Webster, 2021), as well as adoption intentions (Lin et al., 2020).
In hotels, AI-based systems allow users to find alternatives that help to personalize
consumption experiences tailored to their individual preferences. For example, an AI-based
system may autonomously enhance the hotel stay experience with personalized room
temperature, music and lighting according to the user preferences and daily activities
(Bulchand-Gidumal, 2020). Accordingly, perceived benefits are defined in the current study
as hotel customers’ beliefs regarding the access of personalized products using AI-based
systems for making decisions. AI-based systems that provide the abovementioned benefits
may increase the intention to use such technological agents (Ostrom et al., 2019). The
literature confirmed that perceived benefits are effective on trust (Park et al. (2019)), value
perceptions (Kim, 2020), attitudes (Au and Enderwick, 2000) and intention to adopt systems,
including AI-based systems (Kim et al., 2013). Hence, the benefits of an AI-based system
may encourage consumers to let the intelligent agent make decisions for them, according to
the following hypothesis:

H2. Consumers’ perceived benefits of hotel AI-based systems positively influence their
acceptance of technology agency.
IJCHM Perceived risks. Perceived risk is a multifaceted concept (Kansal, 2016) that is context-
dependent (Seo and Lee, 2021) and related to a combination of uncertainty and seriousness
of outcomes (Bauer, 1960). Research in technology adoption focused on different dimensions
of perceived risks (e.g. financial, social, psychological and privacy in Seo and Lee (2021);
performance, time and security risk in Kansal (2016)). AI-based systems that are extensively
replacing human decision-making are mostly related to ethical risks (Müller, 2021), data
privacy and security risks (Ivanov and Umbrello, 2021) and psychological risks
(Yoganathan et al., 2021). In the current study, perceived risks refer to hotel customers’
perceptions of uncertainty and seriousness of the outcomes regarding the use of AI-based
systems for making decisions.
All new technologies exhibit a certain degree of risks due to their unforeseeable
consequences (Morosan, 2010). Hence, users of a new technology may perceive psychological
risks when the adoption decision creates uncertainty, discomfort, anxiety (Featherman, 2001),
hesitation or negative feelings (Seo and Lee, 2021). For example, AI-based systems designed for
task completion and making decisions without user intervention may evoke psychological risk
perceptions (Yoganathan et al., 2021). Additionally, a lack of privacy assurance may raise
concerns about unethical data usage and privacy because personalized hospitality services
depend on a large amount of personal information (Yoganathan et al., 2021). Biased algorithms
in self-learning systems may lead to unethical outcomes for users (DeBrusk, 2018). Several
studies confirmed that perceived risks negatively influence behavioral intention to adopt new
technology (Kansal, 2016). Additionally, the literature on AI-based systems validated a
negative relationship between perceived risks and adoption intention of robot restaurants (Seo
and Lee, 2021), chatbots (Song et al., 2022) and smart-voice assistants (Cao et al., 2022). Also,
increased risk perceptions toward an autonomous decision-making system may decrease the
use of such technology (Wiener and Curry, 1980). Thus, risks regarding the use of AI-based
systems may discourage hotel customers from letting the intelligent agent make decisions for
them. Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:

H3. Consumers’ perceived risks of hotel AI-based systems negatively influence their
acceptance of technology agency.
Perceived loss of competence. Delegating the decision-making responsibility to an AI-based
system can be perceived as a loss of competence by users. Mayer et al. (2020) observed that
allowing the AI-based system to make decisions caused the users to be fearful of losing their
creativity, job-related skills and decision-making abilities. Similar concerns may arise
among hotel consumers because of delegating decision-making authority to AI-based
systems. Consumers are offered multiple service alternatives (e.g. activities, dining options, room
amenities, etc.) with multiple features (e.g. cost, safety, quality, ambiance, etc.). Hotel consumers
may incorporate all or any of these factors into their decision-making (Verma, 2010). Delegating
such decisions to an AI-based system that keeps the consumers out of the loop may cause
consumers to forget how to choose (Wise, 1998), lose awareness of the state and process (Endsley
and Kiris, 1995), lose their decision-making abilities and create overdependence (Pelau et al., 2021).
Accordingly, in this study, perceived loss of competence refers to the hotel consumers’ concerns
about losing habits and skills of making hotel-related decisions and becoming dependent on AI-
based systems.
The perceived risks related to perceived loss of competence stem from continued reliance
on autonomous systems for specific tasks, such as delegating decision-making to
autonomous cars (Bertrandias et al., 2021) or autopilots (Casner et al., 2014). In such contexts,
users are concerned about losing their manual skills and proficiencies acquired over time
and becoming excessively reliant on technology (Bertrandias et al., 2021). Users’ fear of
losing competence may increase their risk perceptions, and thus, they may avoid using Letting AI
autonomous systems. For instance, Wiener and Curry (1980) revealed that many pilots make decisions
turned off the autopilot frequently to maintain their manual flying skills because of the fear
of losing proficiency. Technologies not only take over tasks and decisions from humans’
for me
hands but also remove them from their minds, resulting in forgetfulness (Wise, 1998).
Therefore, AI-based system users may become increasingly addicted to these technologies
and associate this overdependence with risks (Vinichenko et al., 2021). Similarly, hotel
consumers may be concerned about becoming overly reliant on intelligent agents due to
relying on AI-based systems to make hotel-related decisions for them. Thus, perceived loss
of competence regarding the use of AI-based systems may increase hotel customers’ risk
perceptions, according to the following hypothesis:

H4. Consumers’ perceived loss of competence regarding the use of hotel AI-based
systems positively influences their perceived risks.
Perceived unpredictability. AI-based systems that are extensively replacing human decision-
making may cause unintended consequences and risks associated with the complexity and
unpredictability of algorithm-based decision-making (Mayer et al., 2020). The unpredictability
of an AI-based system (also known as unknowability or cognitive uncontainability) generally
refers to the users’ and developers’ inability to anticipate what actions the system will take to
generate outputs, even if the main goals of the system are foreknown (Yampolskiy, 2020). This
definition reflects the operational unpredictability that all autonomous systems exhibit to a
certain degree. Technical unpredictability, on the other hand, relates to the consistency of an
AI-based system’s predictive performance (i.e. accuracy). The third context is driven by the
interaction of technical and operational unpredictability, which refers to the unanticipated
consequences or effects of using an AI-based system (Holland Michel, 2020).
The unpredictability of an AI-based system is often attributed to the opacity of the black-
box algorithms in which the inputs and outputs are known, but the process is not.
Additionally, the algorithms are changing automatically over time, exacerbating the
unforeseen decisions; thus, the accountability of algorithmic decision-making becomes
questionable for the users (Mayer et al., 2020). Hence, the lack of understanding of how an
AI-based system reaches decisions makes the system “opaque” (Müller, 2021) and poses
difficulties for determining how well it functions (Holland Michel, 2020), thus, exacerbating
users’ risk perceptions (Pavlou et al., 2007). In this study, perceived unpredictability refers to
the fact that hotel consumers cannot accurately predict what decisions will be made by the
AI-based system. This uncertainty may influence users’ behavioral responses related to risk
tolerance (Kettle and Dow, 2016) and result in higher risk perceptions (Pavlou et al., 2007).
Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:

H5. Consumers’ perceptions of unpredictability of hotel AI-based systems positively

influences their perceived risks.
Convenience orientation. Given that AI-based systems offer more convenience for users,
convenience-oriented consumers will be more likely to use them (Marshall and Heslop,
1988). Convenience-oriented consumers are comfort conscious and driven by a desire for
less physical and mental effort (Groß, 2019). Hence, convenience-oriented consumers
prefer to optimize task completion (e.g. in terms of time and energy) (Morganosky, 1986)
and seek convenient goods and services (Yoon and Kim, 2007). In the context of
technology adoption, convenience is a multifaceted construct having three dimensions-
time, place and execution. In other words, technology is perceived as convenient when it
IJCHM makes the user reach the service or product (i.e. execution) without any time and place
constraints (Yoon and Kim, 2007). However, convenience orientation is conceptually
different from core technology adoption constructs such as usefulness, as convenience
orientation reflects the characteristics of the user. In the current study, convenience
orientation refers to hotel customers’ desire to make decisions without location and time
restrictions.
Perceived convenience was found to be an important decision factor for technology
adoption, e.g. in e-commerce (Eastin, 2002), mobile learning (Chang et al., 2012) and online
shopping (Raman, 2019). Additionally, previous studies confirmed that convenience
orientation positively influences technology adoption (Girard et al., 2003; Marshall and
Heslop, 1988). In hotels, AI-based systems that enable users to access personalized benefits
and save time are considered convenient technologies (Lalicic and Weismayer, 2021). As
consumers increasingly outsource decisions to bots and algorithms, AI-based systems
become a convenient choice for them (Klaus and Zaichkowsky, 2022). Thus, convenience-
oriented hotel customers may find a relative advantage in letting the intelligent agent make
decisions for them. Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:

H6. Consumers’ convenience orientation positively influences their acceptance of

technology agency regarding the use of hotel AI-based systems.

Methods
Instrument development
As the acceptance of technology agency is still a relatively new concept, the scales were
adapted from studies in which such scales have been established with appropriate
psychometric properties. The perceived benefits and risks were adapted from the
technology adoption literature and measured with three items each. We used an adapted
version of the scale of (Xu et al., 2011) used by Morosan and DeFranco (2015). Similarly, the
perceived ethics scale was adapted from the e-commerce context and measured with three
items that were developed by Roman (2007). The loss of competence scale was adapted from
autonomous decision-making literature and measured with three items developed by
Bertrandias et al. (2021). Perceived unpredictability was measured using an adapted version
of the uncertainty scale of Devaraj et al. (2002) used by Che et al. (2015) in the e-commerce
context. The convenience orientation scale was adapted from the technology adoption
literature and measured with three items developed by Groß (2019). The acceptance of the
technology agency scale was developed based on the logic of Yu et al. (2021), which
synthesized the adaptation of the agency theory and its tenets from the multitude of fields
where it was applied to technology and hospitality (Mayer et al., 2020; Shaikh and Colarelli
O’Connor, 2020; Xu et al., 2022) (Appendix).
The survey instrument included a filtering question, measuring whether the respondents
had stayed in a hotel at any time over a period of 24 months prior to the study. The
instrument also provided a definition of AI-based systems as an information technology that
learns from interactions with consumers and makes decisions based on the information
provided by consumers. The respondents were instructed to read a scenario in which they
had to imagine that they would stay in a hotel that offers an AI-based system that can make
decisions for them. The respondents were directed to imagine that they have arrived at the
hotel and were informed that the AI-based system had made a dinner reservation for them at
a popular restaurant. The system also chose their room location and set the temperature in
the room at their desired level.
 The instrument included brief demographic and behavioral questions necessary for the Letting AI
classification of respondents (education, gender and age). The survey was designed to make decisions
diminish the effects of common method bias by (1) informing the respondents that there are
no right or wrong answers, (2) that they can leave the study at any time and by (3) changing
for me
the scales’ location within the instrument’s flow (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The instrument was
published online using the Qualtrics survey environment and was designed using the
principles of responsive Web design so that there are no differences based on the type of
devices used by respondents.

Data collection
Data were collected with the help of a major marketing panel company, which has access to
panels of consumers. The company has been in practice for over four decades, has access to
millions of panelists, is accredited by ESOMAR and GreenBook, and has an Aþ rating on
better business bureau. The company sends survey invitations to their panelists at the
researchers’ request based on fees, which are generally expressed in dollars per complete
response. The fee is assessed based on the sample and population characteristics (e.g. size
and location). For this study, the general population was represented by adult (18þ years)
consumers from the US who have stayed in hotels anytime within 24 months prior to the
study. Given the cost per complete respondent and the budgetary constraints of the project,
a target sample size was determined to be selected from the above population: 400 complete
respondents. The target sample size met the data sufficiency requirements for an analysis of
this type, in line with the recommendations of Hair et al. (2009).
The researchers provided the survey link to the marketing panel company, which shared
the link with the panelists for completion. A pilot test was conducted with 50 respondents
from the same population, after which data collection was paused. Data collected were
subject to preliminary analyses (e.g. checking for any problematic items, identifying any
question skipping patterns, checking for any technical issues regarding the online survey
environment, etc.). Upon confirming that the data were recorded properly and there were no
issues with the process of data collection, the data collection continued until the target
sample size was achieved. The data collection spanned over three weeks from June to July
2022. After cleaning the data set of records with missing value patterns, a final data set was
retained and included 402 respondents.

Results
Demographic and behavioral analyses
A demographic and behavioral profile of respondents was developed. Overall, it was found
that the sample conformed to the demographic characteristics of the general population of
the US as reflected by the US Census Bureau (U.S. Census, 2013) (Table 1). Specifically, the
largest age segment was 60þ years old (20.8%), followed by 30–39-year-old respondents
(19.2%). In terms of gender, the sample was relatively evenly divided between males and
females. Annual income was also similar to the US population, with 39.6% of respondents
reporting incomes between $50,001 and $100,000 per year per household. Most respondents
had a bachelor’s degree (37.6%). In reference to travel behavior, most respondents reported
that they stayed in hotels 1–2 times a year (41.3%) and generally spend 2–3 nights per stay
(63.2%) (Table 2).

Preliminary results
To determine whether the data set was appropriate for analysis, several preliminary
analyses were conducted. First, the data set was evaluated in terms of multivariate
IJCHM Variables Categories %

Age 18–24 14.7

25–29 9.7
30–39 19.2
40–49 18.7
50–59 16.9
60 or older 20.8
Gender Male 49.8
Female 50.0
Not disclosed 0.02
Annual income $50,000 or less 30.8
$50,001–$100,000 39.6
$100,001–$150,000 14.5
$150,001–$200,000 8.8
$200,001 or more 6.3
Education High school 25.1
Associate degree 17.5
Bachelor’s degree 37.6
Master’s degree 15.5
Doctoral degree 3.0
Table 1. Other 1.3
Demographic profile
of respondents Source: Created by authors

Variables Categories %

Frequency of stay Less than once a year 11.9

1–2 times a year 41.3
3–6 times a year 36.6
7–12 times a year 8.0
More than 12 times a year 2.2
Length of stay 1 night 10.9
2–3 nights 63.2
4–7 nights 24.4
8–14 nights 1.2
Table 2. More than 14 nights 0.3
Behavioral profile of
respondents Source: Created by authors

normality. This was adopted because most structural equation modeling (SEM) software
default to maximum likelihood (ML) estimators that assume that data are multivariate
normal. However, data sets with deviations from multivariate normality are common in
social sciences (Bandalos, 2014). For this reason, advanced SEM software such as Mplus
recommends checking the data for multivariate normality and using estimators that are
robust to deviations from multivariate normality whenever the case (Muthèn and Muthèn,
2017). In this case, an analysis conducted based on Mardia’s coefficients revealed that the
data set was not characterized by multivariate normality (Mardia, 1970). As a result, the
subsequent SEM used a robust estimate, namely, ML robust in Mplus (Muthèn and Muthèn,
2017).
 A critical aspect of survey research is potentially nonresponse bias. To check for nonresponse Letting AI
bias, the sample was divided into two groups – early and late respondents – based on the date of make decisions
their study participation (Ary et al., 1996). Significant differences between the two groups would
indicate that early respondents may respond differently than late respondents. An statistical
for me
package for social sciences analysis was conducted, and it was found only one item (perceived
benefits) showed a minor but significant difference between the two groups (F = 3.893, p = 0.024).
Given the nature of this difference and the full results of the analysis, it was concluded that this
difference may be spurious. Overall, as there are no other significant differences between early
and late respondents, nonresponse bias was deemed not problematic in this study.
An aspect of multivariate analysis is the possibility of common method bias. While
several measures were taken a priori, a postdata collection analysis was conducted to test
for common method bias. Specifically, all items in the instrument were set to load of a single
latent factor, and model fit was assessed. The model had a chi-squared of 2,064.402 and 209
degrees of freedom, which corresponds to a normed chi-squared of 9.87. The model’s
comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.594, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.551 and root mean
squared error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.150. As the model’s fit was poor, it was
concluded that common method bias was not an issue in this data set (Malhotra et al., 2006).

Measurement model results

The modeling consisted of two phases. In the first phase, the measurement model’s
characteristics were tested using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Hair et al., 2009). The
Mplus software version 8.0 was used in the analysis (Muthèn and Muthèn, 2017). During the
initial modeling, one item exhibited a low loading. The item with low loading reflected
respondents’ preferences to make decisions without location and time restrictions. Its
removal did not damage the ability of the scale to properly measure the latent construct, as
the remaining items measured the critical aspect of convenience orientation, in line with the
established conceptualization and operationalization of the construct (Roh and Park, 2019).
Therefore, it was removed from the analysis, and the model was specified. The respecified
model was characterized by appropriate fit, with a chi-squared of 370.279 and 188 degrees of
freedom, which corresponds to a normed chi-squared of 1.97. Also, several absolute and
relative fit indexes were examined, as follows: CFI of 0.960, TLI of 0.951 and RMSEA of
0.050. With the model showing appropriate fit, it was concluded that it was appropriate for
further analysis (Toh et al., 2006).
The next analyses facilitated the examination of reliability and validity (Tables 3 and 4).
Reliability was measured using the squared loadings from each item obtained from the CFA.
Item loadings were subsequently used in the calculation of composite construct reliability
(CCR) values for each latent construct. All CCR were above the commonly accepted value of
0.8, which indicated appropriate reliability (Hair et al., 2009). Two critical aspects of validity
were examined: convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was examined
using the factor loadings from the CFA and the calculated average variance extracted (AVE)
values for each latent construct. All the factor loadings exceeded 0.7 except for one (0.674),
which was kept in the analysis due to its closeness to 0.7 (Chen and Tsai, 2007). In addition,
the AVE values for each latent construct exceeded 0.5. Thus, it was concluded that this
instrument has appropriate convergent validity. To test for discriminant validity, a
procedure recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981) was used. It required a comparison
between the AVE values for each latent construct and the squared inter-construct
correlations.
Discriminant validity is established when the squared correlation between any two
constructs is lower than the AVE values corresponding to those two constructs. In this
IJCHM Constructs Items Loadings Loadings-squared Composite reliability

Perceived ethics 1 0.899 0.808 0.856

2 0.881 0.776
3 0.751 0.564
Perceived benefits 1 0.715 0.511 0.852
2 0.821 0.674
3 0.891 0.794
Perceived risks 1 0.807 0.651 0.860
2 0.864 0.746
3 0.786 0.618
Perceived loss of 1 0.734 0.539 0.822
competence 2 0.674 0.454
3 0.794 0.630
4 0.722 0.521
Perceived 1 0.846 0.716 0.855
unpredictability 2 0.809 0.654
3 0.785 0.616
Convenience orientation 1 0.723 0.523 0.806
2 0.913 0.834
Acceptance of 1 0.918 0.843 0.961
technology agency 2 0.919 0.845
3 0.939 0.882
Table 3. 4 0.933 0.870
Structural model
results Source: Created by authors

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perceived ethics 1 0.716

Perceived benefits 2 0.596 0.660
Perceived risks 3 0.247 0.207 0.672
Perceived loss of competence 4 0.017 0.005 0.292 0.536
Perceived unpredictability 5 0.151 0.101 0.207 0.026 0.662
Convenience orientation 6 0.021 0.021 0.001 0.028 0.001 0.678
Table 4. Acceptance of technology agency 7 0.612 0.567 0.353 0.020 0.1620.036 0.860
Convergent and Notes: The values on the diagonal (Italic) represent the AVE values of the latent variables. The values
discriminant validity under the diagonal represent the squared inter-latent construct correlations
results Source: Created by authors

instrument, all squared correlations were lower than their corresponding AVE values, which
indicated the appropriate discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2009). In addition, the
correlations between perceived ethics and benefits were close to the correlations between
benefits and acceptance of technology agency and the AVE value for benefits (Table 4).
While the AVE scores exceeded the squared correlations between these constructs, two
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) analyses were conducted to confirm discriminant validity
between perceived ethics and benefits, and acceptance of technology agency and benefits
(Henseler et al., 2015). The analyses found HTMT ratios of 0.725 and 0.754, respectively,
which were lower than the accepted threshold of 0.9 (Teo et al., 2008). These results indicate
that discriminant validity was established in this study.
Structural model results Letting AI
The structural model showed good fit based on several absolute and relative indexes (Figure 2). make decisions
The chi-square was 420.613, with 193 degrees of freedom, corresponding to a normed chi-square
of 2.18. The CFI was 0.950, TLI was 0.940 and the RMSEA was 0.055. Overall, all the
for me
hypothesized relationships were confirmed in their predicted direction, which illustrates that this
model is appropriate for the examination of hotel guests’ acceptance of technology agency.
Four constructs were identified as significant antecedents of acceptance of technology
agency. Perceived ethics was found to be the strongest (g = 0.420, p < 0.001). This provides
support for hypothesis H1. That means that the consumers’ perceptions of the way in which
the AI systems make the decisions for consumers are instrumental to their reliance on AI for
such decisions. Not surprisingly, benefits were found to be strong predictors of acceptance
of technology agency (g = 0.335, p < 0.001), therefore, validating hypothesis H2. That is, AI
systems that are perceived to be beneficial by hotel guests are likely to be accepted by
consumers for their ability to make decisions.
In contrast, risks were found to negatively influence acceptance of technology agency,
which validates hypothesis H3. The impact of risks (b = –0.270, p < 0.001) was lower than
that of benefits, which may indicate that consumers may be overlooking the risks when
considering allowing AI systems to make decisions for them in hotels. Not surprisingly,
perceived loss of competence and unpredictability had relatively strong and significant
impacts on risks, therefore, validating hypotheses H4 (g = 0.480, p < 0.001) and H5 (g =
0.400; p < 0.001). That is, consumers perceptions that they would lose their competence by
allowing AI to make decisions for them, and the unpredictable aspects of utilization of such
systems increase the perceived risks associated with such systems in hotels. Finally,
convenience orientation was found to be the weakest antecedent of acceptance of technology
agency (g = 0.099, p < 0.05), thus validating hypothesis H6. That is, consumers who are
oriented toward convenience may still rely on AI systems to make decisions for them, but
that relationship is not strong.

Figure 2.
Structural model
results
IJCHM Discussion
This study sought to validate a conceptual model that explains acceptance of technology
agency regarding AI-based systems in hotels. The model was empirically validated, and the
hypotheses were supported, allowing for the discussion of several key findings. The model
focused on the concept of technology agency related to hotel tasks. This result is critical as
the hotel industry, facing structural challenges, is increasing its reliance on AI-based
systems that make decisions for consumers. While this concept has never been studied in
the hospitality literature, it aligns with other notable academic findings, which together
support the thesis that hotel consumers are likely to adopt AI-based systems in hotels for
consumer-facing tasks.
The first objective of this study was to examine the role of perceived ethics in influencing
acceptance of technology agency. Perceived ethics was found to be the most important
predictor of acceptance of technology agency. This result aligns with the recent literature,
which found that perceived ethics are key predictors of consumers’ behavioral responses
(Shin, 2020) including intentions to adopt AI-based systems (Kordzadeh and Ghasemaghaei,
2022), and such relationships are generally of higher magnitude (e.g. b = 0.47) (Alimamy
and Nadeem, 2021). This result can be explained by the fact that the consumers believe that
making decisions allowing AI-based systems to make decisions for them should be in line
with their own ethical beliefs. This result is notable because it reflects qualitative evaluation
of decisions delegated to AI-based agents. This represents a significant step forward in the
continuous debate that characterizes the ethical environment of AI-based decision-making.
Moreover, this finding taps into consumers’ perceptions regarding decisions that are made
on their behalf but also reflect the algorithmic vision of hotels. Ideally, such interests
converge toward providing a seamless experience to the consumers, but it is possible that
some level of divergence may occur in situations where consumers’ and hotels’ goals are not
aligned.
Another key finding is that both benefits and risks are significant antecedents of
acceptance of technology agency. These findings are consistent with the previous AI
adoption literature (Cao et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2013). Given the theoretical foundation of this
study, the conceptualization of benefits-risks regarding the use of AI-based systems
positions this study uniquely relative to the recent literature, as it recognizes the calculative
processes leading to consumers’ decisions to accept AI-based decisions. Notably, benefits
were found to be a slightly stronger predictor of acceptance of technology agency than risks.
That is, consumers could be slightly overlooking the risks of using AI-based systems when
the benefits are clear. This result stands out from the recent literature, where benefits have
much stronger impacts than risks on outcome variables, such as technology adoption or
willingness to disclose personal information (Morosan, 2018). In addition, this result seems
to indicate that the consumers focus their acceptance of technology agency decisions on the
benefits rather than the risks.
The second objective of this study was the incorporation within the conceptual model of
two antecedents of risks: perceived loss of competence and unpredictability. While this
result was validated for the first time in the hospitality literature, it aligns with the logic of
existing research outside hospitality (Mayer et al., 2020). However, while a significant
relationship is expected between perceived loss of competence and risks, the previously
empirically validated results reflect settings characterized by deeper competence in task
completion (e.g. piloting an aircraft) (Casner et al., 2014). These results are explicable by the
fact that regardless of the level of competence necessary to complete a task (e.g. making a
dinner reservation, adjusting the ambiental settings in the guestroom), consumers relying on
automation would eventually try heuristic approaches to task completion when such
opportunities occur and that ultimately utilization of intelligent systems affects their control Letting AI
over their digital selves (Schweitzer et al., 2019). Furthermore, users with high perceptions of make decisions
competence loss could overemphasize the “black-box” logic of AI decision-making, which
results in a more acute appraisal of risks. This could be attributable to the incipient phases
for me
of deployment of AI technologies, postpandemic changes and the resulting higher reliance
on automation to address consumers’ service delivery and mitigate staff shortages. Through
these results, this study expands the logic of previous findings to tasks of relatively lower
levels of competence, such as hotel tasks (e.g. making a dinner reservation). These results
are also interesting when considering the asymmetries of information that characterize hotel
services, especially postpandemic.
The significant and relatively strong effect of unpredictability on risks is not surprising
in accordance with the related literature (Pavlou et al., 2007). This finding reflects the logic
that the complexity of AI-system decision-making could be difficult to understand by
consumers, which can result in a sense of unpredictability. Therefore, the decisions may
seem unpredictable relative to decisions that may be made directly by the consumers (Mayer
et al., 2020). Furthermore, as unpredictability reflects the blend between consumers’ feeling
of uncertainty related to the AI-based system decisions, corroborated with the inherent risks
associated with intelligent agents’ completion of tasks, this finding emphasizes that
consumers may be willing to engage in using such systems but eventually understand that
there is risk involved. This finding has essential ramifications for the use of AI in hotels
toward specific tasks, as generally, the decisions that are facilitated by AI-based systems
represent sub-decisions of the overall hotel experience. As hotel consumers are generally
forgiving with respect to errors made by service robots, the risk associated with acceptance
of technology agency of specific sub-decisions in hotels may be relatively easily mitigated
by the hospitable nature of a hotel stay.
Finally, the low magnitude of the relationship between convenience orientation and
acceptance of technology agency is surprising and contrasts the technology adoption
literature (Marshall and Heslop (1988)). For example, Lalicic and Weismayer (2021) found
that convenience is a major reason for consumers’ use of chatbots in travel planning. Yet, in
this study, regardless of level of consumers’ convenience orientation, their acceptance of
technology agency remains slightly unchanged. This could be attributable to the fact that
acceptance of technology agency of AI-based systems may appeal not only to consumers
who are seeking convenience but also to a broader range of consumers. Additionally, this
finding could be attributed to the fact that the utilization of AI-based agents is relatively
simple in hotels and does not require new skills to be learned specifically for their utilization,
which would differentiate between consumers ranging in their convenience orientation from
high to low. Finally, the AI-based decisions may be viewed similarly to the rest of decisions
pertaining to a hotel stay in terms of convenience, as the hotel stay environment is by
default characterized by offering convenience to consumers as a primary attribute of a
successful stay.

Implications
Theoretical implications
This study brings several important theoretical implications due to the typology of the
constructs used in the development of the conceptual model and the technology-task dyad
examined in this study. This study is the first in hospitality to use the concept of acceptance
of technology agency regarding the use of AI-based systems in hotels. While acceptance of
technology agency has been studied before in areas outside of hospitality, the hospitality
literature is characterized mostly by research on the performance of AI (Chen et al., 2022),
IJCHM consumers’ evaluations of consumer-system interactions (Mariani and Borghi, 2021) and
systematic review studies (Mariani and Wirtz, 2023). Occupying a unique position within
this growing literature, this study addresses an essential drawback – that of lack of research
examining the determinants of AI technology acceptance (Kong et al., 2022). Thus, by
offering initial insight into the determinants and the overall process of acceptance of
technology agency regarding AI-based decision-making in hotels, this study opens a new
area for research in hospitality. Specifically, it stays at the foundation of research that
examines the way consumers accept a novel, relatively more extensive role of AI, that goes
beyond recommendations or simple interactions.
This study captures the advancements in business models that use advanced systems
that can revolutionize the way consumers and intelligent systems interact within the
framework of a hotel experience. As AI becomes better equipped to make decisions for
consumers instead of merely helping, examining the way consumers accept decisions made
by systems that are capable of minimizing error, increase value and contribute to a
frictionless hospitality experience becomes a research priority. This is critical for designing
new theoretical frameworks that can inform academic and corporate research and
development, which leads to fostering innovation within the growing entrepreneurial
hospitality sector (Filieri et al., 2021).
The results of this study advance the agency theory. As the theory primarily focuses on
the motivations and the engagement pertaining to the principal–agent relationship, this
study underscores the more important impact of the benefits (relative to risks) in users’
acceptance of technology agency. This aspect is critical, given that risks that are generally
mitigated when the principal anticipates the agent’s actions remain high in hotel AI-based
services due to the black-box algorithmic decision-making processes. Thus, the examination
of agency within this context has implications for understanding acceptance of technology
agency decisions in other similar contexts dominated by “black-box” systems, such as
super-AI or quantum computing. In addition, this study augments the conceptual reach of
agency theory and its modern technology-oriented adaptations to transient service contexts,
which are not dominated by the same longer-term commitment between agents and
principals as initially recognized by theory. Because the role of hotel technology is to assist
consumers to build the servicescape within the limited time frame of a transient encounter,
providing insight into the relative shorter-term acceptance of agency advances our current
understanding of the way the alignment of interests, information asymmetry and expected
performance are negotiated by service consumers.
A substantial theoretical contribution is the utilization of the perceived ethics construct.
As the technology infrastructure of hotels is increasingly made up of systems that are
capable of incorporate data-based learning into decisions, scholars have increasingly called
for the examination of ethics regarding autonomous systems (Ivanov and Umbrello, 2021).
This is paramount given the “black-box” aspect of AI decision-making and the design of
algorithms, which may lead to biased outcomes (Jobin et al., 2020). This study highlights
that perceptions of ethics are critical aspects that act as catalysts and shape consumers’
decisions in situations where the benefit-risk dyad is ambiguous. Accordingly, this study
provides the conceptual link between agency theory and ethics, and thus, extends the
conceptual space of the agency theory, permitting a comprehensive examination of
technology agency in business contexts dominated by opaque technologies superimposed
on intangible services. Therefore, recognizing perceived ethics as a strong conceptual
antecedent of acceptance of technology agency in hotels implies that guests’ acceptance of
technology agency is considerably shaped by their motivational schemas. Furthermore,
while ethics-related constructs have been integrated within classic technology adoption
models (Saurabh et al., 2022), this study illustrated how ethics can be used to expand the Letting AI
conceptual scope of models explaining the decision-making ability of autonomous systems. make decisions
Thus, this study advances the information systems literature as it departs from its
traditional focus on system perceptions or consumer characteristics.
for me
While this study relied on a conceptual tradeoff between benefits and risks, it provides
novel insight into other possible factors affecting the risks of acceptance of technology
agency in hotels. While perceived loss of competence has been studied in well-defined
technical contexts such as aircraft piloting, its utilization in service contexts provides a new
conceptual foundation for research into the role of AI-based agents in facilitating human
tasks in services. This is a significant advancement for the services literature, as services,
especially hotel services, are basing their entire business models on staff members always
being available to address consumers’ needs. During this process, staff members can learn
and eventually incorporate that learning into the delivery of services to the consumers. Such
models also facilitate consumers’ learning of information necessary for task completion (e.g.
how to connect to a streaming service using the in-room TV). The utilization of both
perceived loss of competency and unpredictability as antecedents of risks reflects two
complementary aspects of risk:
(1) the way consumers perceive their roles in making decisions when technology is
available; and
(2) the consequences of stepping away from the decision and allowing AI-based
agents to decide.

Managerial implications
As the hotel industry is continuously developing its technology infrastructure, it is
important to recognize a few implications for managerial practice. First, this study
underlines the importance of acceptance of technology agency for hotel consumers. The
findings suggest that hotel consumers are ready to use such systems for decision-making.
Therefore, to enhance the potential outcomes of acceptance of technology agency, hotels can
confidently deploy them going forward. This approach may create disruptions of the
traditional business models, in which consumers were given control of their preferences.
Hospitality information technology vendors are already working on solutions that would
involve AI-based agents capable of making decisions for consumers, such as automatic
assignment of rooms and pushing information about consumer preferences to multiple
touchpoints. Following this trend, an increasing number of hotels are initiating
communication with guests prior to their arrival, which could represent an opportunity for
hotels to learn about preferences. In such cases, these data can be used in AI decision-
making. Thus, relying on such technologies and engaging in novel business models, hotels
can provide frictionless service. Consumers can benefit from services that are designed
based on their preferences without necessarily having to make decisions or explicitly
expressing those preferences. To promote such services, hotels can communicate their
utilization of AI-based business models using a variety of marketing strategies. Such
strategies may be aimed at early adopters to stimulate exploratory use and may portray the
ways hotels build competitive advantages by simplifying consumers’ access and fulfillment
of services on the property.
Recognizing that consumers facing such technologies engage in a benefit-risk tradeoff
suggests that hotels need to engage in clear communication regarding the benefits of
acceptance of technology agency. One specific way in which this can be done is to provide a
clear explanation of the decisions that could be made by AI-based agents, the information
IJCHM required for decision-making and the likely expected outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, conversion
and retention). Additionally, hotels can provide assurance to the guests that decisions made
by AI-based agents via acceptance of technology agency can be reversed by providing
services facilitated by staff.
Consumers’ interpretation of AI-based decisions is important (Yalcin et al., 2022);
therefore, hotels can choose how to communicate the way in which service decisions are
being made for consumers. Any new technologies added to the service portfolio are
deployed to add value to the service stakeholders, so the consumers’ reactions to AI
decisions may be nuanced based on the characteristics of services and decisions. Promoting
the benefits of AI decisions could represent a strong foundation of the communication
strategy of hotels. A characteristic of acceptance of technology agency is delegating
decisions that commit the users to additional financial commitments, such as accepting
dinner reservations for restaurants that have cover charges. Opt-out mechanisms for
consumers to cancel reservations without penalty could add tremendous value for all
stakeholders. Hotels should also develop communication procedures that inform the
consumers that such decisions are associated with possible extra charges.
The implications of this study extend from the hotel industry to other travel verticals.
For example, travel agencies promoting tour packages for consumers who visit a destination
for the first time can emphasize the ethical design of the AI-based systems and the benefits
that consumers can accrue. This can detangibilize the entire travel experience, reduce
consumers’ information searches and ultimately increase the value of travel. Similarly, such
systems can be deployed in foodservice, especially in online food delivery systems. For
example, consumers may be indecisive regarding menu choices or participate in events in
which they have difficulty choosing the details. Marketers that emphasize the way AI-based
systems optimize the decision-making processes can make consumers more confident in
relying on AI-based systems.
This study also has implications spanning to other geographical settings, affecting the
global travel industry. As the industry is facing increasing consolidation and multiple
systems can now seamlessly interface, understanding the factors that lead to acceptance of
technology agency in one industry allows other connected industries to design products that
take advantage of consumers’ use of AI-systems. Specifically, systems that are used in
hotels can seamlessly adopted by airlines, foodservice, car rental or local attractions, to
ultimately create the integrated and frictionless travel experience that all consumers seek.
Such integration can increase the benefits and ethical decision-making capabilities of AI.
This is because the data necessary for such systems’ self-learning is continuously increasing
in magnitude, scope, speed and accuracy.

Limitations and further directions

Consistent with studies in social sciences, this study has several limitations. Thus, the
results of this study should not be disassociated from its context. A first limitation lies in
this study’s location in the US. While the US hotel industry has witnessed several key
changes related to the deployment of AI-based systems, not all the hotels benefit from the
same access to technology. Furthermore, given the heterogeneity of US hotel services, there
could be differences in terms of hotel infrastructure, system integration, brand restrictions
or qualified staff availability. To address this limitation, future research should examine
segmented markets.
The second limitation is based on the fact that this study was conducted with consumers
in the US American consumers have access to a multitude of technologies in their daily lives,
including AI-based agents. They are generally proficient in the utilization of such systems in
various contexts. To address this limitation and increase the external validity of future Letting AI
studies, researchers should focus on international samples of consumers who have access to make decisions
various AI-based technologies.
Third, the data was collected in 2022, while the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
for me
closures might have been lingering. To overcome this limitation, future research could
engage in longitudinal research. Finally, to maintain parsimony and reflect the reality
of the hotel industry, this study only included two antecedents of risks. Future research
should incorporate additional constructs in conceptual models. For example, constructs
such as consumers’ characteristics, their experience using AI-based systems and
familiarity with products and decisions being facilitated by AI could provide a more
accurate illustration of the mechanisms by which consumers form their perceptions of
risk associated with AI and should be included in conceptual models. Further research
can study the effects of automating certain legacy processes that currently lead to
consumer dissatisfaction, such as manually assigning rooms to consumers. This
process would generate in-depth insight into the deployment of manual and automatic
task completion processes in services.

References
Amer, M. and Alqhtani, A. (2019), “IoT applications in smart hotels”, International Journal of Internet
of Things and Web Services, Vol. 4, pp. 8-13.
Adams, J., Dedehayir, O. and O’Connor, P.A. (2022), “Theoretical model of technology, agency, and
wellbeing”, The XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference “Innovating in a Digital World”,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Aghaei, S., Nematbakhsh, M.A. and Farsani, H.K. (2012), “Evolution of the world wide web: from
web 1.0 to web 4.0”, International Journal of Web and Semantic Technology, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 1-9.
Alimamy, S. and Nadeem, W. (2021), “Is this real? Cocreation of value through authentic experiential
augmented reality: the mediating effect of perceived ethics and customer engagement”,
Information Technology and People, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 577-599.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. and Razavieh, A. (1996), Introduction to Research in Education, 5th ed., Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Ft. Worth, TX.
Au, A.K.-M. and Enderwick, P. (2000), “A cognitive model on attitude towards technology adoption”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 266-282.
Bandalos, D.L. (2014), “Performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust
maximum likelihood estimation”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 102-116.
Bauer, R.A. (1960), “Consumer behavior as risk”, Marketing: Critical Perspectives on Business and
Management, Vol. 3, p. 13.
Bertrandias, L., Lowe, B., Sadik-Rozsnyai, O. and Carricano, M. (2021), “Delegating decision-making to
autonomous products: a value model emphasizing the role of well-being”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 169, p. 120846.
Bosse, D.A. and Phillips, R.A. (2016), “Agency theory and bounded self-interest”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 276-297.
Bulchand-Gidumal, J. (2020), “Impact of artificial intelligence in travel, tourism, and hospitality”,
Handbook of e-Tourism, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Candrian, C. and Scherer, A. (2022), “Rise of the machines: delegating decisions to autonomous AI”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 134, p. 107308.
IJCHM Cao, D., Sun, Y., Goh, E., Wang, R. and Kuiavska, K. (2022), “Adoption of smart voice assistants
technology among Airbnb guests: a revised self-efficacy-based value adoption model (SVAM)”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 101, p. 103124.
Casner, S.M., Geven, R.W., Recker, M.P. and Schooler, J.W. (2014), “The retention of manual flying skills
in the automated cockpit”, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 1506-1516.
Chang, C.C., Yan, C.F. and Tseng, J.S. (2012), “Perceived convenience in an extended technology
acceptance model: mobile technology and English learning for college students”, Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 19-26.
Che, T., Peng, Z., Lim, K.H. and Hua, Z. (2015), “Antecedents of consumers’ intention to revisit an online
group-buying website: a transaction cost perspective”, Information and Management, Vol. 52
No. 5, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2015.04.004.
Chen, Y., Hu, Y., Zhou, S. and Yang, S. (2022), “Investigating the determinants of performance of
artificial intelligence adoption in hospitality industry during COVID-19”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Chen, C.F. and Tsai, D.C. (2007), “How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral
intentions?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1115-1122.
Choi, D.W., Chatfield, H.K. and Chatfield, R.E. (2018), “Agency or stewardship?”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1352-1373.
Ciftci, O., Choi, E.-K. and Berezina, K. (2021), “Let’s face it: are customers ready for facial recognition
technology at quick-service restaurants?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 95, p. 102941.
Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D. and Bressgott, T. (2020), “How artificial intelligence will
change the future of marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 24-42.
DeBrusk, C. (2018), “The risk of machine-learning bias (and how to prevent it)”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 15, p. 1.
Devaraj, S., Fan, M. and Kohli, R. (2002), “Antecedents of B2C channel satisfaction and preference:
Validating e-commerce metrics”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, doi: 10.1287/
isre.13.3.316.77.
de Bellis, E. and Venkataramani Johar, G. (2020), “Autonomous shopping systems: Identifying and
overcoming barriers to consumer adoption”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 96 No. 1, doi: 10.1016/j.
jretai.2019.12.004.
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 Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 1154-1176.
Dowling, C. and Nicholson, P. (2002), “Choice and responsibility: the delegation of decision making to
intelligent software agents”, Human Choice and Computers, Springer, Boston, MA.
Eastin, M.S. (2002), “Diffusion of e-commerce: an analysis of the adoption of four e-commerce
activities”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 251-267.
Endsley, M.R. and Kiris, E.O. (1995), “The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in
automation”, Human Factors, Vol. 37.
Featherman, M. (2001), “Extending the technology acceptance model by inclusion of perceived risk”, in
AMCIS.
Filieri, R., D’Amico, E., Destefanis, A., Paolucci, E. and Raguseo, E. (2021), “Artificial intelligence (AI)
for tourism: an European-based study on successful AI tourism start-ups”, International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 4099-4125.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gaur, L., Afaq, A., Singh, G. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2021), “Role of artificial intelligence and robotics to Letting AI
foster the touchless travel during a pandemic: a review and research agenda”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 4079-4098.
make decisions
Girard, T., Korgaonkar, P. and Silverblatt, R. (2003), “Relationship of type of product, shopping
for me
orientations, and demographics with preference for shopping on the internet”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 101-120.
Groß, M. (2019), “Mobile shopper typology: a shopping motive-based clustering approach to
discovering differences in shopping patterns along the mobile path-to-purchase”, International
Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 326-352.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.B. and Anderson, R.E. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prenticel Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 45no, pp. 115-135.
Holland Michel, A. (2020), The Black Box, Unlocked: Predictability and Understandability in Military AI,
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Geneva.
Hotellogix (2022), “The impact of AI on the hotel industry”, available at: www.hospitalitynet.org/news/
4108343.html
Ivanov, S.H. (2022), “Automated decision-making”, Foresight, Emerald Group Holdings Ltd, foresight,
Vol. 25 No. 1, doi: 10.1108/FS-09-2021-0183.
Ivanov, S.H. and Umbrello, S. (2021), “The ethics of artificial intelligence and robotisation in tourism
and hospitality–a conceptual framework and research agenda”, Journal of Smart Tourism,
Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 9-18.
Ivanov, S. and Webster, C. (2021), “Willingness-to-pay for robot-delivered tourism and hospitality
services – an exploratory study”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 3926-3955.
Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976), “Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 305-360.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M. and Vayena, E. (2020), “The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines”, Nature
Machine Intelligence, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 389-399.
Kansal, P. (2016), “Perceived risk and technology acceptance model in self-service banking: a study on
the nature of mediation”, South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 51-68.
Kennedy, D. and Hidalgo, M. (2021), “Two-Way Human-Agent trust relationships in adaptive cognitive
agent, adaptive tasking scenarios: Literature metadata analysis”, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics), Vol. 12762, LNCS, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-78462-1_14.
Kettle, N.P. and Dow, K. (2016), “The role of perceived risk, uncertainty, and trust on coastal climate
change adaptation planning”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 479-606.
Kim, J. (2020), “The influence of perceived costs and perceived benefits on AI-driven interactive
recommendation agent value”, Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 319-333.
Kim, K.J., Park, E. and Sundar, S.S. (2013), “Caregiving role in human–robot interaction: a study of the
mediating effects of perceived benefit and social presence”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1799-1806.
Kishishita, D. (2020), “(Not) delegating decisions to experts: the effect of uncertainty”, Journal of
Economic Theory, Vol. 190, p. 105117.
Klaus, P. and Zaichkowsky, J.L. (2022), “The convenience of shopping via voice ai: Introducing AIDM”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 65, p. 102490.
IJCHM Kong, H., Wang, K., Qiu, X., Cheung, C. and Bu, N. (2022), “30 Years of artificial intelligence (AI)
research relating to the hospitality and tourism industry”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 35 No. 6.
Kong, H., Yuan, Y., Baruch, Y., Bu, N., Jiang, X. and Wang, K. (2021), “Influences of artificial intelligence
(AI) awareness on career competency and job burnout”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 717-734.
Kordzadeh, N. and Ghasemaghaei, M. (2022), “Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research
directions”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 388-409.
Krafft, M. (1999), “An empirical investigation of the antecedents of sales force control systems”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 120-134.
Lalicic, L. and Weismayer, C. (2021), “Consumers’ reasons and perceived value co-creation of using
artificial intelligence-enabled travel service agents”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 129,
pp. 891-901.
Leonidis, A., Korozi, M., Margetis, G., Grammenos, D. and Stephanidis, C. (2013), “An intelligent
hotel room”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in
Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 8309 LNCS, 10.1007/978-3-
319-03647-2_19.
Li, J., Bonn, M.A. and Ye, B.H. (2019), “Hotel employee’s artificial intelligence and robotics
awareness and its impact on turnover intention: the moderating roles of perceived
organizational support and competitive psychological climate”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 73, pp. 172-181.
Lien, C.-H., Hsu, M.K., Shang, J.-Z. and Wang, S.W. (2019), “Self-service technology adoption by air
passengers: a case study of fast air travel services in Taiwan”, The Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 25, pp. 1-25.
Lin, H., Chi, O.H. and Gursoy, D. (2020), “Antecedents of customers’ acceptance of artificially intelligent
robotic device use in hospitality services”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 530-549.
Lupia, A. (2001), “Delegation of power: agency theory”, in Smelser, N.J. and Baltes, B. (Eds),
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Pergamon Press,
Oxford.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Patil, A. (2006), “Common method variance in is research: a comparison of
alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 12,
pp. 1865-1883.
Mansfred, Y., Jonas, A. and Cahaner, L. (2016), “Between tourists’ faith and perceptions of travel risk:
an exploratory study of the Israeli Haredi community”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 395-414.
Mardia, K.V. (1970), “Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications”, Biometrika,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 519-530.
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.
Mariani, M. and Wirtz, J. (2023), “A critical reflection on analytics and artificial intelligence based
analytics in hospitality and tourism management research”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Marshall, J.J. and Heslop, L.A. (1988), “Technology acceptance in Canadian retail banking: a study of
consumer motivations and use of ATMS”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 31-41.
Mayer, A.S., Strich, F. and Fiedler, M. (2020), “Unintended consequences of introducing AI systems for
decision making”, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 239-257.
Mishra, D.P., Heide, J.B. and Cort, S.G. (1998), “Information asymmetry and levels of agency Letting AI
relationships”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 277-295.
make decisions
Morganosky, M.A. (1986), “Cost-versus convenience-oriented consumers: demographic, lifestyle, and
value perspective”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
for me
Morosan, C. (2010), “Theoretical and empirical considerations of guests’ perceptions of
biometric systems in hotels”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 52-84.
Morosan, C. (2018), “Information disclosure to biometric e-gates: the roles of perceived security,
benefits, and emotions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 644-657.
Morosan, C. and Bowen, J.T. (2022), “Labor shortage solution: redefining hospitality through
digitization”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 12,
pp. 4674-4685.
Morosan, C. and DeFranco, A. (2015), “Disclosing personal information via hotel apps: a privacy
calculus perspective”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 47, pp. 120-130.
Müller, V.C. (2021), “Ethics of artificial intelligence”, in Elliott, A. (Ed.), The Routledge Social Science
Handbook of AI, Routledge, London.
Muthèn, L.K. and Muthèn, B.O. (2017), Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed., Muthen and Muthen, Los Angeles,
CA.
Nanggong, A. and Rahmatia, R. (2019), “Perceived benefit, environmental concern and sustainable
customer behavior on technology adoption”, The Asian Journal of Technology Management,
Vol. 12, pp. 1-14.
Napomuceno, N.V., Laroche, M. and Richard, M.-O. (2014), “How to reduce perceived risk when
buying online: the interactions between intangibility, product knowledge, brand
familiarity, privacy and security concerns”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 619-629.
Nath, R. and Sahu, V. (2020), “The problem of machine ethics in artificial intelligence”, AI and Society,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 103-111.
Nevo, S., Nevo, D. and Pinsonneault, A. (2016), “A temporally situated self-agency theory of information
technology reinvention”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 157-186.
Nyholm, S. (2020), Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism, Rowman and
Littlefield Publishing Group, London.
Oracle (2022), “Hospitality opera cloud services user guide – running AI room assignment”, available at,
available at: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/F18689_01/doc.193/f23597/t_running_ai_room_assignment.
htm#OCSUH-RunningAIRoomAssignment-3125537B
Ostrom, A.L., Fotheringham, D. and Bitner, M.J. (2019), “Customer acceptance of AI in service
encounters: understanding antecedents and consequences”, Handbook of Service Science,
Springer, Cham, Vol 2.
Ozdemir, O., Dogru, T., Kizildag, M. and Erkmen, E. (2023), “A critical reflection on digitalization for the
hospitality and tourism industry: value implications for stakeholders”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Park, J., Amendah, E., Lee, Y. and Hyun, H. (2019), “M-payment service: interplay of perceived risk,
benefit, and trust in service adoption”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and
Service Industries, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-43.
Pelau, C., Ene, I. and Pop, M.I. (2021), “The impact of artificial intelligence on consumers’ identity and
human skills”, www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro, Vol. 23 No. 56, doi: 10.24818/EA/2021/56/33.
Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online
exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 105-136.
IJCHM 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.
Raman, P. (2019), “Understanding female consumers’ intention to shop online: the role of trust,
convenience and customer service”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 1138-1160.
Ranerup, A. and Henriksen, H.Z. (2022), “Digital discretion: unpacking human and technological
agency in automated decision making in Sweden’s social services”, Social Science Computer
Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 445-461.
Reis, L., Maier, C., Mattke, J., Creutzenberg, M. and Weitzel, T. (2020), “Addressing user resistance would
have prevented a healthcare AI project failure”, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 19 No. 4, p. 101.
Roh, M. and Park, K. (2019), “Adoption of o2o food delivery services in South Korea: the moderating
role of moral obligation in meal preparation”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 47, pp. 262-273.
Roman, S. (2007), “The ethics of online retailing: a scale development and validation from the consumers’
perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72 No. 2, doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9161-y.
Saurabh, K., Aror, R., Rani, N., Misra, D. and Ramkumar, M. (2022), “Ai led ethical digital
transformation: framework, research and managerial implications”, Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 229-256.
Schweitzer, F., Belk, R., Jordan, W. and Ortner, M. (2019), “Servant, friend or master? The relationships
users build with voice-controlled smart devices”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 35
Nos 7/8, pp. 693-715.
Seo, K.H. and Lee, J.H. (2021), “The emergence of service robots at restaurants: integrating trust,
perceived risk, and satisfaction”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 8, p. 4431.
Seytoglu, F. and Ivanov, S. (2020), “A conceptual framework of the service delivery system design for
hospitality firms in the (post-)viral world: the role of service robots”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 91 No. 102661, pp. 1-10.
Shaikh, I.A. and Colarelli O’Connor, G. (2020), “Understanding the motivations of technology
managers in radical innovation decisions in the mature R&D firm context: an agency theory
perspective”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 55, doi: 10.1016/j.
jengtecman.2020.101553.
Shin, D. (2020), “User perceptions of algorithmic decisions in the personalized AI system: perceptual
evaluation of fairness, accountability, transparency, and explainability”, Journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 541-565.
Siau, K. and Wang, W. (2020), “Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics: ethics of AI and ethical AI”, Journal of
Database Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 74-87.
Song, M., Xing, X., Duan, Y., Cohen, J. and Mou, J. (2022), “Will artificial intelligence replace human
customer service? The impact of communication quality and privacy risks on adoption
intention”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 66, p. 102900.
Stout, N., Dennis, A.R. and Wells, T.M. (2014), “The buck stops there: the impact of perceived
accountability and control on the intention to delegate to software agents”, AIS Transactions on
Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Sun, J., Jia, Y. and Sun, X.Y. (2019), “The influence of consumer confusion on the delay of purchase
decision”, Commercial Times, Vol. 4, pp. 70-72.
Taddeo, M. and Floridi, L. (2018), “How AI can be a force for good”, Science, Vol. 361 No. 6404,
pp. 751-752.
Teo, T.S.H., Srivastava, S.C. and Jiang, L. (2008), “Trust and electronic government success: an
empirical study”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 99-132.
Ting, D. (2017), “Hilton and Marriott turn to the internet of things to transform the hotel room Letting AI
experience”, available at: https://skift.com/17/11/14/hilton-and-marriott-turn-to-the-internet-of-
things-to-transform-the-hotel-room-experience
make decisions
Toh, R.S., Lee, E. and Hu, M.Y. (2006), “Social desirability bias in diary panels is evident inpanelists’
for me
behavioral frequency”, Psychology Reports, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 322-334.
Tumbat, G. and Grayson, K. (2016), “Authority relinquishment in agency relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 42-59.
Tuo, Y., Ning, L. and Zhu, A. (2021), “How artificial intelligence will change the future of tourism
industry: the practice in China”, Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-65785-7_7.
Tussyadiah, I. and Miller, G. (2019), “Nudged by a robot: Responses to agency and feedback”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 78, p. 102752.
U.S. Census (2013), “Age and sex composition in the United States 2012”, available at: www.census.gov/
population/age/data/2012comp.html.
Verma, R. (2010), “Customer choice modeling in hospitality services: a review of past research and
discussion of some new applications”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 4, doi: 10.1177/
1938965510378829.
Vinichenko, M.V., Narrainen, G.S., Melnichuk, A.V. and Chalid, P. (2021), “The influence of artificial
intelligence on human activities”, Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, Vol. 316, doi:
10.1007/978-3-030-57831-2_60.
Volchek, K., Yu, J., Neuhofer, B., Egger, R., and Rainoldi, M. (2021), “Co-creating personalised
experiences in the context of the personalisation-privacy paradox”, Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-65785-7_8.
Wiener, E.L. and Curry, R.E. (1980), “Flight-deck automation: Promises and problems”, Ergonomics,
Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 995-1011.
Wise, J.M. (1998), “Intelligent agency”, Cultural Studies, Vol. 12 No. 3, doi: 10.1080/095023898335483.
Wu, L., Fan, A., Yang, Y. and He, Z. (2022), “Tech-touch balance in the service encounter: the impact of
supplementary human service on consumer responses”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 101.
Xu, H., Luo, X., Carroll, J.M. and Rosson, M.B. (2011), “The personalization privacy paradox: an
exploratory study of decision making process for location-aware marketing”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 51 No. 1, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017.
Xu, S., Wang, Y.C. and Ma, E. (2022), “A workplace-driven model on the formation of OCB-C:
perspectives of social exchange theory and agency theory”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 2684-2703, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-11-
2021-1409.
Yalcin, G., Lim, S., Puntoni, S. and van Osselaer, S.M.J. (2022), “Thumbs up or down: consumer
reactions to decisions by algorithms versus humans”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 59
No. 4, pp. 696-717.
Yampolskiy, R. (2020), “Unexplainability and incomprehensibility of AI”, Journal of Artificial
Intelligence and Consciousness, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Yoganathan, V., Osburg, V.-S., 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.
Yoon, C. and Kim, S. (2007), “Convenience and tam in a ubiquitous computing environment: the case of
wireless lan”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 102-112.
Yu, B., Vahidov, R. and Kersten, G.E. (2021), “Acceptance of technological agency: beyond the
perception of utilitarian value”, Information and Management, Vol. 58 No. 7, p. 103503.
IJCHM Appendix. Constructs and measurement items
Please read the following scenario before you begin the survey.
Imagine that you are about to stay in a hotel that offers an artificial intelligence (AI)-based
system that can make decisions for consumers. Imagine that you have arrived at the hotel and you
receive a message informing you that the AI-based system has made a dinner reservation for you at a
popular restaurant. The system also chose your room location for you and set the temperature in the
room at your desired level.
Constructs and items:
(1) Perceived ethics.
 I consider the hotel’s AI-based system to be ethical when making decisions for
consumers like me.
 I consider the hotel’s AI-based system to be fair when making decisions for
consumers like me.
 I think that the hotel’s AI-based system follows a moral code when making
decisions for consumers like me.
(2) Perceived benefits.
 The AI-based system for making decisions reduces my searching time to access the
personalized services/products that I need.
 The AI-based system for making decisions can provide me with the convenience to
instantly access the personalized services/products that I need.
 Overall, I feel that using the AI-based system for making decisions for consumers is
beneficial to access personalized services/products.
(3) Perceived risks.
 Using AI-based systems for making decisions for consumers in hotels would
involve many unexpected problems.
 It would be risky to use AI-based systems for making decisions for consumers in
hotels.
 There would be high potential for loss in using AI-based systems for making
decisions for consumers in hotels.
(4) Perceived loss of competence.
 With an AI-based system that makes decisions for consumers, I think that I will
lose the habit of making hotel-related decisions.
 If I use an AI-based system for making decisions, I will become dependent on this
technology.
 In the long run, I fear losing my hotel-related decision-making skills because of the
AI-based system that makes decisions for consumers.
 In the long run, the AI-based system that makes decisions for consumers will make
me feel like I am not thinking.
(5) Perceived unpredictability.
 I cannot predict what decisions will be made by the AI-based system when staying
in hotels.
 I do not know what decisions will be made for me by the AI-based system next time
when I stay in a hotel.
 It is difficult for me to know what decisions will be made by the AI-based system
beforehand.
 (6) Convenience orientation. Letting AI
 I try to make my decisions as quickly as possible. make decisions
 I always want to make my decisions in a short amount of time. for me
(7) Acceptance of technology agency.
 I would be comfortable letting an AI-based system to make decisions for me when
staying in hotels.
 I would let an AI-based system to make decisions for me when staying in hotels.
 I would trust an AI-based system to make decisions for me when staying in hotels.
 I would be confident in an AI-based system to make decisions for me when staying
in hotels.
Source: Created by authors

Corresponding author
Cristian Morosan can be contacted at: cmorosan@uh.edu

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