Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

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

An improvement or a gimmick? The importance of user perceived values,

previous experience, and industry context in human–robot
service interaction
Yaou Hu
Department of Tourism Management, School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China

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

Keywords: To tackle the debate over whether using service robots is an improvement or merely a gimmick, this research
Service robot examined actual users’ attitudes and long-term usage behavior in human–robot service interactions from the
Human–robot service interaction perspective of perceived values. Study 1 revealed that the effect of perceived hedonic value on users’ attitudes is
Experience quality
contingent upon perceived utilitarian value. When utilitarian value is low, hedonic value negatively affects users’
Perceived value
Previous experience
attitudes, leading service robots to be perceived as a gimmick. When utilitarian value is high, hedonic value
Future behavioral intention positively contributes to users’ attitudes, causing users to see service robots as a service improvement. Study 2
found that perceived utilitarian and hedonic values evoke users’ future behavioral intention. The strengths of
these impacts depend upon users’ previous experiences. When users have less (vs. more) previous experience, the
effect of perceived hedonic (vs. utilitarian) value is more influential on users’ future behavior. The effects of
perceived values also depend on the industry context: when the setting is utilitarian (vs. hedonic), perceived
utilitarian (vs. hedonic) value plays a more prominent role in determining users’ future behavioral intention.
These findings provide theoretically and practically meaningful implications regarding human–robot service
interaction across settings in tourism, hospitality and destination marketing and management.

1. Introduction
The rise of service robots has garnered close attention from industry
practitioners and researchers in tourism and hospitality (Tussyadiah,
2020; Xu, Stienmetz, & Ashton, 2020; Yoganathan, Osburg, Kunz, &
Toporowski, 2021). As technological innovations abound in the tourism
and hospitality sector, debate persists around whether service robots
represent a noteworthy improvement or simply a gimmick. Some
scholars and customers contend that the presence of service robots in
service settings, especially in hospitality and tourism, marks a dramatic
industry breakthrough (Mende, Scott, van Doorn, Grewal, & Shanks,
2019). Others are skeptical of service robots’ long-term benefits. Those
who doubt these robots’ utility argue that the use of service robots in
human–robot interaction amounts to “gimmicks or marketing ploys”
(Tung & Au, 2018), suggesting that these temporary marketing strate­
gies will fail once people no longer consider robots novel (Choi, Choi,
Oh, & Kim, 2020). This dispute raises two pertinent yet unanswered
questions: 1. Why do some users perceive service robots as an improvement
while others perceive robots as a gimmick? 2. What aspects of human–robot
service interaction influence individuals’ long-term usage of service robots?
Insights related to the above questions are of theoretical and prac­
tical importance, as evidenced by scholars’ initial explorations (e.g. Choi
et al., 2020; Christou, Simillidou, & Stylianou, 2020; Hu, Min, & Su,
2021; Lu, Cai, & Gursoy, 2019; Tung & Au, 2018; Yoganathan et al.,
2021). These studies have provided a foundation for understanding
customers’ psychology and behavior when interacting with service ro­
bots. However, the extant literature has limitations. First, because some
early studies were exploratory, they tended to be conceptual (e.g. Tung
& Law, 2017; van Doorn et al., 2017; Wirtz et al., 2018). Many of the
proposed theoretical relationships thus lack empirical testing. Second,
with few exceptions (e.g. de Kervenoael, Hasan, Schwob, & Goh, 2020),
studies featuring a quantitative approach have mainly examined users’
initial adoption of service robots (Lu et al., 2020). Specifically, re­
searchers have investigated customers’ perceptions, attitudes, and be­
haviors related to using service robots based on imagined or simulated
service interaction experiences (e.g. Chan & Tung, 2019; Choi, Liu, &
Mattila, 2019; Choi, Mattila, & Bolton, 2020; Hu et al., 2021; Yogana­
than et al., 2021) rather than actual experiences. Real-life human–robot
service interactions can differ substantially from hypothetical ones and
are thus more meaningful for understanding individuals’ long-term

E-mail address: yaouhu@jnu.edu.cn.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100645
Received 18 May 2021; Received in revised form 18 July 2021; Accepted 20 July 2021
Available online 26 July 2021
2212-571X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Hu
service robot usage (Lu et al., 2020). To address these constraints, the
present study aims to answer the above-mentioned research questions
through a series of empirical studies focusing on actual users who have
had at least one service interaction with robots.
The current work is built upon the theory of perceived consumption
values and the value-based decision-making model (Babin, Darden, &
Griffin, 1994; Chi, Gursoy, & Chi, 2020; Lin & Mattila, 2021; Ryu, Han,
& Jang, 2010; Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003; Zeithaml, 1988).
This research proposes that the joint effect of users’ perceived utilitarian
and hedonic values is key to forming users’ attitudes towards service
robots. When users perceive utilitarian and hedonic values from inter­
acting with a service robot, people are more likely to embrace these
robots as an improvement rather than a gimmick and to use them in the
long run. Thus, perceived values are vital to individuals’ long-term
usage of service robots. This research also aims to identify the circum­
stances in which different value types (i.e. utilitarian vs. hedonic) play a
more prominent role.
This research consists of a pilot study and two main studies. Because
service robots are cutting-edge innovations bearing unique technolog­
ical features, this work first clarifies the conceptualization and mea­
surement of users’ perceived utilitarian and hedonic values in
human–robot service interaction through a detailed literature review
and qualitative pilot study. Study 1 then empirically tests the effects of
perceived values of human–robot interaction on users’ attitudes towards
service robots, providing an answer to the first research question. Study
2 aims to answer the second research question by examining how
perceived values (i.e. utilitarian and hedonic values) affect individuals’
long-term usage behavior (i.e. future behavioral intention) and the
boundary conditions of these effects. Specifically, Study 2 uncovers the
moderating role of one user characteristic (i.e. previous experience) and
one situational factor (i.e. industry context: utilitarian vs. hedonic) on
the effects of perceived values on future behavioral intention. Results
shed light on the circumstances in which each perceived value is rela­
tively more prevalent in determining individuals’ long-term usage. The
collective findings make vital theoretical contributions to the human­
–robot interaction literature in tourism and hospitality. This research
offers novel insights for destination marketing and management. It also
offers important managerial implications for practitioners to leverage
users’ perceived values in human–robot service interaction across
different settings of the tourism and hospitality industry.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1. Service robots in tourism and hospitality
Technology innovations of service robots based on artificial intelli­
gence (AI) and automation technologies are growing rapidly in tourism
and hospitality (Webster & Ivanov, 2020). Reception robots, concierge
robots, porter robots, waiter robots, room service delivery robots, and
guide robots can be seen in hotels, restaurants, airports and tourist
destinations (e.g. Chi et al., 2020; Lin & Mattila, 2021; Webster & Iva­
nov, 2020; Reis, Melão, Salvadorinho, Soares, & Rosete, 2020). These
service robots can take various forms, including virtual assistants,
chatbots, non-humanoids, and humanoids (Choi et al., 2019; Tussyadiah
& Miller, 2019). Besides the basic mechanical and automatic functions,
service robots possess the capability of interacting, communicating and
delivering services to customers (Wirtz et al., 2018). The intelligence
component differentiates service robots from traditional self-service
technologies (Choi, Mattila, & Bolton, 2020) and enables service ro­
bots to engage with customers with social-emotional and relational el­
ements (Wirtz et al., 2018). In human-robot interactions, these elements
make customers tend to perceive service robots as a social entity (Chi,
Denton, & Gursoy, 2020; Tussyadiah & Miller, 2019; van Doorn et al.,
2017). In addition, service robots can either provide services to cus­
tomers with the presence of human employees or independently (Choi
et al., 2019; Choi, Mattila, & Bolton, 2020; Hu et al., 2021). A notable
2
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645
case is the Henn-na hotel in Japan, which is a fully automated hotel
without human employees interacting with guests (Reis et al., 2020).
As the technological advances of service robots are growing, so are
the interests of researchers and industry professionals (Ivanov &
Webster, 2019; McCartney & McCartney, 2020; Tussyadiah, 2020).
Current research on service robots in tourism and hospitality mainly
focuses on the following themes: the impacts of service robots on service
management (e.g. Belanche, Casaló, Flavián, & Schepers, 2020) and the
tourism and hospitality economy (e.g. Webster & Ivanov, 2020);
whether service robots with AI are going to replace human labor (e.g.
Huang & Rust, 2018) and employees’ perceptions of the AI and robotics
technologies (e.g. Li, Bonn, & Ye, 2019); and customers’ perceptions,
attitudes, and acceptance of service robots and the factors that affect
customers’ attitudes, service experiences, and usage behaviors (e.g.
Borghi & Mariani, 2021; Chi, Gursoy, & Chi, 2020; Choi, Oh, Choi, &
Kim, 2021; Christou et al., 2020; de Kervenoael et al., 2020).
The tourism and hospitality industry has generally embraced service
robots and artificial intelligence as valuable innovations (Chi, Denton, &
Gursoy, 2020) and recognized the profound impacts these innovations
may bring on the tourism and hospitality society and economy (Ivanov
& Webster, 2020; Webster & Ivanov, 2020). The benefits of service ro­
bots are even more prominent facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous
studies have found that the COVID-19 pandemic makes customers
become more aware of the importance of social and physical distancing
(Kim, Kim, Badu-Baiden, Giroux, & Choi, 2021; Seyitoğlu & Ivanov,
2021; Wan, Chan, & Luo, 2021); thus, customers are more likely to
adopt service robots to reduce direct human contact (Hou, Zhang, & Li,
2021; Zeng, Chen, & Lew, 2020). There are certainly also challenges
along with the rapid growth the robotic technologies, such as the po­
tential changes in leadership and human resource management in the
future workforce (Ivanov, Seyitoğlu, & Markova, 2020; Vatan & Dogan,
2021; Xu et al., 2020). Although the technology has not yet achieved the
desired advancement to fully replace human employees (Huang & Rust,
2018), it is aware by customers and industry professionals that service
robots will redefine the tourism and hospitality workforce to a certain
extent (Xu et al., 2020).
The research stream of customers’ acceptance of service robots and
human-robot service interaction has also flourished (e.g. Ivanov &
Webster, 2019; Kazandzhieva & Filipova, 2019; Park, 2020; Shin &
Jeong, 2020; Tussyadiah & Park, 2018; Tussyadiah, Zach, & Wang,
2020; Webster & Ivanov, 2020). Previous studies reveal that, in
human-robot service interactions, customers’ service evaluations, atti­
tudes, and behaviors are a function of three types of factors: features of
the service robots (e.g. anthropomorphism design, ease of use, func­
tionality, service quality; Christou et al., 2020; Gretzel & Murphy, 2019;
Melián-González, Gutiérrez-Taño, & Bulchand-Gidumal, 2021), char­
acteristics of the customers or users (e.g. age, gender, cultural difference,
need for human interaction, technology readiness; Choi, Oh, Choi, &
Kim, 2020; Hudson, Orviska, & Hunady, 2017; Ivanov, Webster, &
Garenko, 2018; Lee, Lee, & Kim, 2021; Yoganathan et al., 2021), and
nature of the service contexts (e.g. service failure, utilitarian or hedonic
context; Choi, Mattila, & Bolton, 2020; Hu et al., 2021). Since it is still at
the early stage of service robots’ adoption, a large number of the above
studies are based on anticipated or simulated service interaction expe­
riences (e.g. Chan & Tung, 2019; Choi et al., 2019; Choi, Mattila, &
Bolton, 2020; Hu et al., 2021; Yoganathan et al., 2021) rather than
actual experiences.
2.2. Perceived utilitarian and hedonic value of service robots in
human–robot interaction
While some individuals are open to use service robots and deem
service robots as an important improvement (e.g. Mende et al., 2019),
others still have concerns over the potential negative consequences that
are associated with service robots (Ivanov, Webster, & Seyyedi, 2018).
In addition, some customers and industry professionals are skeptical of
Y. Hu
service robots’ long-term benefits (e.g. Tung & Au, 2018). As a result,
researchers in human-robot service interaction are calling for more
research in examining individuals’ long-term usage behavior of service
robots after actual interactions (Lu et al., 2020). Building upon previous
findings, this research responds to the call from a perceived value
perspective. Human–robot service interaction entails a process in which
users and service robots cocreate value (van Doorn et al., 2017). The
theory of perceived consumption values suggests that values embody
customers’ subjective gains and losses (Babin et al., 1994). Customers’
perceived values can be generally classified as either utilitarian or he­
donic (Voss et al., 2003). Perceived utilitarian value refers to one’s
overall evaluation of the functional benefits and utility derived from a
consumption experience (Babin et al., 1994); perceived hedonic value
reflects the emotional benefits of an experience, such as fun, pleasure
(Longoni & Cian, 2020; Ozturk, Nusair, Okumus, & Hua, 2016),
excitement, and novelty (Prebensen & Rosengren, 2016). These two
types of values are common in service contexts and are readily apparent
in human–robot service interaction. On one hand, service robots possess
an array of useful functions (Lin & Mattila, 2021) enabling them to
interact, communicate with, and deliver services to customers (Wirtz
et al., 2018) while fulfilling service tasks. On the other hand, service
robots create novel (Lin & Mattila, 2021), fun, and enjoyable service
experiences for customers (e.g. Hu et al., 2021; van Doorn et al., 2017).
After human–robot service interaction, customers may form or adjust
their attitudes based on evaluations of the consumption experience
(Choi, Choi, et al., 2020). Studies have shown that, while some users see
service robots as a service industry enhancement, others consider these
robots to be marketing gimmicks (e.g. Choi, Choi, et al., 2020; Fuen­
tes-Moraleda, Díaz-Pérez, Orea-Giner, Muñoz-Mazón, & Vil­
lacé-Molinero, 2020; Tung & Au, 2018). For instance, online comments
from actual users in the hotel context indicated that some users found
service robots to be little more than a marketing ploy intended to appeal
to families with children (Fuentes-Moraleda et al., 2020). This notion is
consistent with Choi, Choi, Oh, & Kim’s (2020) study, in which some
interviewees reported that service robots appeared to be gimmicks that
would fail once the novelty waned. Both studies imply that, among users
who consider service robots gimmicky, the main value gained from
associated experiences is hedonic.
Given this logic, the current research postulates that people’s overall
attitudes towards using service robots depend on perceived values. More
importantly, the effect of perceived hedonic value on users’ attitudes
towards service robots is contingent upon perceived utilitarian value. If
a user perceives hedonic value but insufficient utilitarian value from a
human–robot service interaction, they are more likely to consider ser­
vice robots a gimmick. By contrast, if a user perceives hedonic and
utilitarian values, they are likely to express a positive attitude towards
service robots and consider these robots a service improvement.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. Perceived hedonic value (H1a) and perceived utilitarian value
(H1b) each have positive effects on users’ attitudes towards service
robots.
H2. The effect of perceived hedonic value on users’ attitudes towards
service robots is contingent upon perceived utilitarian value.
2.3. Perceived value and future behavioral intention in human–robot
service interaction
According to the value-based decision-making model, customers
make future consumption decisions based on subjective expected values
(Suri, Gross, & McClelland, 2020). After a service experience, cus­
tomers’ perceived values may reshape their anticipated values in terms
of future consumption and inform subsequent decisions, such as
acceptance (e.g. Lin & Mattila, 2021), continued usage or recommen­
dation intentions (e.g. Lee & Kim, 2018; Ozturk et al., 2016). Regarding
technology usage (e.g. business-to-consumer e-commerce, mobile hotel
3
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645
booking, service robots), empirical evidence shows that utilitarian and
hedonic values are positively associated with usage intention (e.g. de
Kervenoael et al., 2020) and continued usage (Chiu, Wang, Fang, &
Huang, 2014; Ozturk et al., 2016). Accordingly, this research proposes
that, after experiencing human–robot service interaction, users’
perceived utilitarian and hedonic values will positively influence their
future behavioral intention. The following hypothesis is hence put forth:
H3. Perceived utilitarian value (H3a) and perceived hedonic value
(H3b) each have positive effects on future behavioral intention.
2.4. The moderating roles of previous experience and industry context
This research further suggests two boundary conditions of perceived
values’ effects on users’ future behavioral intention, namely (1) a user
characteristic (i.e. previous experience) and (2) a situational factor (i.e.
industry context: utilitarian vs. hedonic). An experienced user’s moti­
vations and expectations related to service robots may differ from those
of a relatively novice user. Scholars have found that new users of a
product, service, or experience often seek novelty and enjoyment (e.g.
Dedeoglu, Bilgihan, Ye, Buonincontri, & Okumus, 2018; Lau &
McKercher, 2004; McKercher & Wong, 2004). This pattern aligns with
the status quo of service robot adoption in the service industry: because
service robots are inherently innovative and still rare in service en­
counters, guests are willing to interact with these robots largely due to
the novelty of doing so (Choi, Choi, et al., 2020) as well as the intrinsic
emotional and hedonic values of the experience (Lin, Chi, & Gursoy,
2020; Lu et al., 2019).
In the long run, as service robots are widely adopted in service en­
counters – and when users become more experienced with and accus­
tomed to these robots – the robots’ hedonic value may play a lesser part
in users’ future behavior (Wirtz et al., 2018). In addition, an experienced
user knows what to expect from a human–robot service interaction
because their expectations are based on prior personal experience. Thus,
for experienced users, the utility, efficacy, and functionality (i.e. utili­
tarian value) of service robots more strongly guides these users’ future
decisions and behavior. The following hypotheses are proposed
accordingly:
H4. Previous experience positively moderates the effect of perceived
utilitarian value on future behavioral intention (H4a), such that as
previous experience increases, the effect of perceived utilitarian value
on future behavioral intention becomes stronger. Previous experience
negatively moderates the effect of perceived hedonic value on future
behavioral intention (H4b), such that as previous experience increases,
the effect of perceived hedonic value on future behavioral intention
becomes weaker.
Another main factor that may moderate the effect of perceived
values on users’ future behavioral intention is the industry context of
human–robot interaction, namely whether the setting is more utilitarian
or hedonic (Chi, Gursoy, & Chi, 2020; Longoni & Cian, 2020). Perceived
values are based on users’ subjective judgments and evaluations and can
vary across consumption situations (Sánchez, Callarisa, Rodríguez, &
Moliner, 2006). The service industry consists of multiple sub-sectors,
some of which are primarily hedonic: restaurants, tourist attractions
(Prebensen & Rosengren, 2016), and hotels (Deb & Lomo-David, 2020).
Other contexts are largely utilitarian, such as transport (Prebensen &
Rosengren, 2016), banks (Jiang & Wang, 2006; Otterbring, 2017),
museums (Su & Teng, 2018), and conferences. These settings also reflect
locations where service robots are often adopted (Ivanov, Gretzel,
Berezina, Sigala, & Webster, 2019).
The industry context (utilitarian vs. hedonic) and types of perceived
values (utilitarian vs. hedonic) may intersect in shaping users’ behavior
(Deb & Lomo-David, 2020; Longoni & Cian, 2020; Otterbring, 2017;
Prebensen & Rosengren, 2016). When a certain perceived value is
congruent with the industry setting, the joint effect becomes stronger in
molding users’ perceptions and future behavior. Specifically, when the
Y. Hu
context is chiefly utilitarian (e.g. transportation and museums),
perceived utilitarian value becomes relatively more important than
perceived hedonic value in affecting users’ behavior. Conversely, when
the context is primarily hedonic (e.g. restaurants and tourist attrac­
tions), perceived hedonic value becomes relatively more important. The
following hypotheses are hence proposed:
H5. Industry context moderates the effects of perceived values (i.e.
utilitarian and hedonic) on future behavioral intention, such that a link
exists between perceived values and industry context in determining
users’ future behavioral intention. When the context is more utilitarian
(vs. hedonic), the impact of perceived utilitarian value (vs. perceived
hedonic value) on future behavioral intention is stronger (vs. weaker;
H5a); and the impact of perceived hedonic value (vs. perceived utili­
tarian value) on future behavioral intention is weaker (vs. stronger;
H5b).
3. Study design
3.1. Research sample
Data for this research were gathered in China, where service robots
have been implemented across a variety of settings: restaurants, bus and
train stations, airports, hotels, museums, tourist attractions (Chi, Gur­
soy, & Chi, 2020; Qiu, Li, Shu, & Bai, 2020), and hospitals (Ackerman,
Guizzo, & Shi, 2020). These robots are used for diverse purposes,
including checking in and out; taking orders; providing tour guide ser­
vices; delivering luggage and room service; and receiving, directing, and
communicating with guests. Therefore, collecting data on human–robot
service interaction in China is reasonable and representative. The target
population for this research consisted of individuals who had interacted
with service robots at least once.
3.2. Pilot study and measurement instrument
Because service robots are a technological innovation, human–robot
service interaction might differ from traditional service interaction
(Choi, Choi, et al., 2020). The conceptualization and measurement of
perceived values when interacting with service robots could thus be
distinct from conventional operationalizations. A pilot study was per­
formed to identify potentially unique features of human–robot service
interaction and adapt measurement instruments accordingly. A survey
questionnaire containing open-ended questions on customers’ percep­
tions, attitudes, and evaluations of human–robot service interaction was
sent to an online panel of 58 respondents in mainland China (60.3 %
men; Mage = 28.21, SD = 6.72) with at least one human–robot interac­
tion experience.
In the pilot study, respondents’ overall attitudes towards service
robots ranged from believing that these robots were a major service
improvement to considering them a gimmick. This finding is consistent
with prior work. Users’ attitudes towards service robots were measured
with eight items adapted from the literature (e.g. Choi, Choi, et al.,
2020; Kim, Lee, & Law, 2008) and modified based on the pilot study
results. Sample items include “Using service robots is an important
improvement” and “Using service robots is a gimmick” (reverse coded).
In terms of the perceived values of human–robot service interaction, the
pilot study revealed a clear pattern of utilitarian and hedonic value
perceptions: utilitarian perceptions emphasized robots’ convenient,
time-saving, and practical features; hedonic perceptions related to the
positive emotions and novelty associated with service robots. Mea­
surement items regarding perceived values were then modified to suit
the context of human–robot interaction. Items on perceived utilitarian
value were adapted from de Kervenoael et al. (2020). Perceived hedonic
value was assessed using items adapted from Dedeoglu et al. (2018) and
Prebensen and Rosengren (2016). Items evaluating future behavioral
intention were adapted from Lee and Kim (2018). Previous experience
4
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645
was measured by the number of times a respondent had used service
robots (Hu & Kim, 2018). The key constructs of interest were rated on a
7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
4. Study 1
4.1. Data collection and sample profile of study 1
Data for Study 1 were obtained via an online survey platform in
mainland China in January 2021. All survey measurements were origi­
nally written in English and back translated into Chinese. Individuals
who had interacted with service robots at least once in the tourism and
hospitality context were the target population of this study. A total of
141 questionnaires were collected. The survey included two attention
check questions asking respondents to select a specific answer to a
certain question. If a respondent failed one of the attention checks, their
survey was removed from analysis. Ultimately, 129 valid questionnaires
were retained (pass rate: 91.49 %).
Respondents’ mean age was 28.62 years (SD = 6.38). As service
robots are a cutting-edge innovation and young generations are more
likely to be early adopters of such advances (Ivanov, Webster, &
Seyyedi, 2018; Kim, 2016), the age distribution of this sample is
reasonable. Roughly half of respondents (55.0 %) were men. Among
respondents’ experiences with service robots, 40.3 % occurred in a hotel
or restaurant, 24.8 % at a museum or conference, and 13.2 % at a tourist
attraction (see Table 1).
4.2. Results and findings of study 1
Before testing H1, a series of reliability tests were conducted and
items’ means, standard deviations, and normality were examined.
Skewness and kurtosis values fell within an acceptable range. Results
showed that the constructs in Study 1 had satisfactory reliability
(Cronbach’s α perceived utilitarian value = 0.88, Cronbach’s α perceived hedonic
value = 0.91, Cronbach’s α attitude towards using service robots = 0.80). Results
appear in Table 2.
The constructs were then averaged and used to conduct regression
analysis. Attitude towards using service robots was taken as the
dependent variable; perceived utilitarian value, perceived hedonic
value, and their interaction term were used as independent variables;
and respondents’ age and gender (male = 0, female = 1) were control
variables. Results appear in Fig. 1. The model explained 55 % of the
variance in users’ attitudes towards service robots [R2 = 0.55, F(5, 123)
= 29.89, p < .001]. After controlling for the effects of age [b = 0.01, t
(123) = 0.92, p = .36] and gender [b = 0.05, t(123) = 0.64, p = .53],
perceived hedonic value [b = 0.38, t(123) = 4.59, p < .001; H1a] and
perceived utilitarian value [b = 0.39, t(123) = 5.20, p < .001; H1b] each
had significant positive effects on users’ attitudes towards service ro­
bots. Therefore, H1 was supported. The interaction term between
perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value had a significant
impact on users’ attitudes towards service robots as well [b = 0.13, t
(123) = 6.04, p < .001], suggesting that the effect of perceived hedonic
value on users’ attitudes towards service robots depended upon in­
creases in perceived utilitarian value. H2 was thus supported.
Moreover, Johnson-Neyman significance regions from the floodlight
analysis (Spiller, Fitzsimons, Lynch, & McClelland, 2013) revealed that
when perceived utilitarian value was low (i.e. below 1.53), perceived
hedonic value had a significant negative effect on users’ attitudes to­
wards service robots. When perceived utilitarian value was between
1.53 and 4.16, the impact of perceived hedonic value on users’ attitudes
towards service robots was non-significant. When perceived utilitarian
value was high (above 4.16), perceived hedonic value exerted a signif­
icant positive effect on users’ attitudes towards service robots (Fig. 2).
The findings of Study 1 highlight perceived utilitarian value and
perceived hedonic value as important contributors to users’ positive
attitudes towards using service robots. In addition, the joint effect of
Y. Hu Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645

Table 1
Profile of studies 1 and 2.
Variable Category Study 1 Study 2
N = 129 N = 268

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Gender Male 71 55.0 153 57.1

Female 58 45.0 115 42.9
Education Less than high school 1 .8 5 1.1
High school graduate 3 2.3 37 13.8
Associate degree/Certificate/Bachelor’s degree 116 83.0 206 76.9
Master’s or doctoral degree 9 7.0 22 8.2
Monthly income ￥5000 and below 22 17.1 44 16.4
￥5001–8000 44 34.1 85 31.7
￥8001–10000 29 22.5 92 34.3
￥10001–15000 29 22.5 39 14.6
￥15001 and above 5 3.9 8 3.0
Service setting when interacting with a robot Museums/conferences 32 24.8 68 25.4
Tourist attractions 17 13.2 57 21.3
Hotels and restaurants 52 40.3 99 36.9
Airports 18 14.0 25 9.3
Train or bus stations 5 3.9 15 5.6
Other (e.g. banks and libraries) 5 3.9 4 1.5

Note: 1.00 USD ≈ 6.47 CNY (as of January 2021).

Table 2
Mean, SD, normality, and reliability of measurement items in Study 1.
Construct Item Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s α

Perceived utilitarian value 1. The use of the service robot was worthwhile to me. 5.76 1.08 − 1.99 6.38 .88
2. The use of the service robot was beneficial for enhancing my experience. 5.94 1.06 − 1.76 4.69
3. The use of the service robot was helpful to me. 6.12 .84 − 1.85 9.38
4. The use of the service robot was efficient. 5.73 1.14 − 1.20 2.04
5. The use of the service robot saved my time. 5.75 1.08 − 1.18 2.36
6. The use of the service robot was convenient to me. 5.91 1.10 − 1.67 3.83
7. The use of the service robot was smooth to me. 5.82 .97 − 1.35 4.22
Perceived hedonic value 1. The use of the service robot was fun to me. 6.11 .84 − 1.33 3.76 .91
2. The use of the service robot was exciting to me. 5.84 1.00 − 1.25 3.63
3. The use of the service robot was pleasant to me. 6.06 1.01 − 2.00 6.51
4. The use of the service robot was interesting to me. 5.98 .98 − 2.03 6.87
5. The use of the service robot was entertaining to me. 5.74 1.06 − 1.26 3.15
6. The use of the service robot was novel to me. 6.18 .96 − 1.91 6.28
7. The use of the service robot satisfied my curiosity. 6.12 .98 − 2.05 7.21
Attitude towards using service robots 1. Using service robots is an important improvement. 6.19 .73 -.44 -.58 .80
2. Using service robots is relevant in everyday life. 5.96 .87 -.50 -.41
3. Using service robots is appealing. 6.04 .82 -.84 .98
4. Service robots have potential. 6.31 .75 -.81 .02
5. Using service robots is a good idea. 6.20 .82 − 1.33 4.02
6. Using service robots is advisable. 5.84 .88 -.39 -.51
7. Using service robots is worth recommending. 6.05 .95 − 1.26 1.82
8. Using service robots is a gimmick (reverse coded). 5.25 1.53 − 1.00 .52

perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value on users’ atti­

tudes towards service robots was contingent upon perceived utilitarian
value. Only when both values were high were users likely to see service
robots as an improvement rather than a gimmick.

5. Study 2

5.1. Data collection and sample profile

Study 2 was intended to identify the effects of perceived values on

Fig. 1. Results of Study 1. Note: Values are unstandardized regression co­
efficients. ***p < .001.
users’ future behavioral intention and the boundary conditions of such
effects. Specifically, this study examined whether users’ prior experi­
ence and the industry context affected relationships between perceived
utilitarian and hedonic values and future behavioral intention. Data for
Study 2 were obtained via an online survey platform in mainland China
in January 2021. Individuals who had interacted with service robots at
least once were the target population, and 299 questionnaires were
collected. The survey contained three attention check questions asking
respondents to select a specific answer. As in Study 1, if a respondent
failed one of the attention checks, their survey was excluded from

5
Y. Hu Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645

Fig. 2. Users’ attitudes towards service robots as a function of perceived values.

analysis. After this procedure, 268 valid questionnaires were retained
(pass rate: 89.63 %).
Respondents’ mean age was 28.32 years (SD = 5.10). Men consti­
tuted 57.1 % of the sample (see Table 1). Among respondents’ in­
teractions with service robots, 36.9 % happened in a hotel or restaurant,
25.4 % at a museum or conference, and 21.3 % at a tourist attraction.
The hotel (e.g. Chi, Gursoy, & Chi, 2020) and restaurant industry and
tourist attractions are often recognized as hedonic-oriented services,
whereas transportation and museums or conferences are considered
utilitarian-oriented (e.g. Chi, Gursoy, & Chi, 2020; Jiang & Wang, 2006;
Otterbring, 2017; Prebensen & Rosengren, 2016). Therefore, this study
classified hotels, restaurants, and tourist attractions as belonging to the
hedonic industry context while airports, train/bus stations, and
museums/conferences exemplified the utilitarian setting.
5.2. Results and findings of study 2
5.2.1. Effects of perceived values on future behavioral intention
The items’ means and standard deviations were tested (Table 3). All
items had reasonable skewness and kurtosis, indicating a normal dis­
tribution. Constructs’ reliability was assessed next. All multi-item con­
structs demonstrated acceptable reliability, ranging from 0.81 to 0.86.
After ensuring the measures’ reliability, each construct was averaged for
regression analysis. A multiple-step regression analysis was carried out
to test H3–H6. Respondents’ age and gender (male = 0, female = 1) were
used as control variables in subsequent analysis. Research has shown
that service robots’ anthropomorphic design has a notable impact on
users’ perceptions (Choi et al., 2019; Christou et al., 2020; Murphy,
Gretzel, & Pesonen, 2019). Therefore, service robots’ anthropomor­
phism (no = 0, yes = 1) was also used as a control variable. Detailed
results are listed in Table 4.
In the first step, perceived utilitarian value and perceived hedonic
value were taken as predictors of future behavioral intention. This

Table 3
Mean, SD, normality, and reliability of measurement items in Study 2.
Construct Item Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s α

Perceived utilitarian value 1. The use of the service robot was worthwhile to me. 5.91 .81 -.58 .67 .86
2. The use of the service robot was beneficial for enhancing my experience. 6.11 .86 − 1.33 4.31
3. The use of the service robot was helpful to me. 6.10 .82 -.89 1.15
4. The use of the service robot was efficient. 5.92 1.04 − 1.19 1.82
5. The use of the service robot saved my time. 5.96 1.04 − 1.33 2.28
6. The use of the service robot was convenient to me. 6.09 .91 − 1.04 1.55
7. The use of the service robot was smooth to me. 5.94 .93 − 1.04 1.33
Perceived hedonic value 1. The use of the service robot was fun to me. 6.09 .90 − 1.06 1.92 .86
2. The use of the service robot was exciting to me. 5.91 1.00 − 1.05 1.63
3. The use of the service robot was pleasant to me. 6.03 .89 − 1.32 4.05
4. The use of the service robot was interesting to me. 6.10 .82 -.64 .101
5. The use of the service robot was entertaining to me. 5.89 1.04 − 1.44 3.29
6. The use of the service robot was novel to me. 6.13 .92 − 1.23 2.93
7. The use of the service robot satisfied my curiosity. 6.19 .87 − 1.25 2.34
Future behavioral intention 1. I intend to use service robots in the future. 6.13 .82 -.83 .76 .81
2. I would like to use other types of service robots in the future. 6.12 .85 -.75 -.03
3. I intend to use other types of service technology innovations in the future. 6.13 .79 -.84 1.13
4. I would like to choose to use service robots again in the future. 5.46 1.17 -.60 -.20
5. I would recommend service robots to others. 5.91 .94 -.91 1.88
Previous experience 1. How many times have you used service robots? 3.29 1.58 .54 -.85 NA

6
Y. Hu Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645

Table 4 After controlling for the effects of other predictors, the interaction
Results of regression analysis in Study 2. term between perceived utilitarian value and previous experience had a
Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 significant positive effect on future behavioral intention [b = 0.10, t
(259) = 2.91, p < .01; H4a]. As previous experience increased, the
DV: Future DV: Future BI DV: Future BI
BI impact of perceived utilitarian value on future behavioral intention
became stronger (Fig. 4). In particular, when users had less previous
Moderator: Moderator:
Previous Industry
experience (1 SD below the mean, previous experience = 1.71), the ef­
experience context fect of perceived utilitarian value on future behavioral intention was
0.31 (p < .01). With more experience (1 SD above the mean, previous
Hypothesized direct effects
Perceived utilitarian value .49*** .47*** .49*** experience = 4.87), the effect of perceived utilitarian value on future
(H3a) behavioral intention was 0.63 (p < .001). On the contrary, the interac­
Perceived hedonic value .38*** .40*** .38*** tion term between perceived hedonic value and previous experience had
(H3b) a significant negative effect on future behavioral intention [b = − 0.12, t
Hypothesized interactions
Perceived utilitarian value × .10** (H4a)
(259) = − 3.38, p < .01; H4b]: as previous experience increased, the
previous experience effect of perceived hedonic value on future behavioral intention
Perceived hedonic value × -.12** (H4b) declined (Fig. 4). More concretely, when a respondent had less previous
previous experience experience (1 SD below the mean, previous experience = 1.71), the ef­
Perceived utilitarian value × -.36** (H5a)
fect of perceived hedonic value on future behavioral intention was 0.59
industry context (utilitarian =
0, hedonic = 1) (p < .001); with more experience (1 SD above the mean, previous
Perceived hedonic value × .34** (H5b) experience = 4.87), the effect of perceived hedonic value on future
industry context (utilitarian = behavioral intention became weaker (b = 0.21, p < .05). As such, H4 was
0, hedonic = 1) supported.
Control variables
Age -.004 -.004 -.01
Gender (male = 0, female = 1) -.04 -.03 -.04 5.2.3. Moderating effect of industry context
Anthropomorphism (no = 0, yes -.10 -.16 -.07 To test H5, the industry setting (utilitarian-oriented = 0, hedonic-
= 1) oriented = 1) was applied as a moderator. Utilitarian contexts mainly
Previous experience .01 .003
included airports, bus and railway stations, and museums/conferences;
Industry context (utilitarian = 0, -.04
hedonic = 1) hedonic contexts included hotels, restaurants, and tourist attractions.
Intercept .97** 6.22*** 6.20*** Results are depicted in Table 3 and Fig. 5. After controlling for the effects
F test F(5, 262) = F(8, 259) = F(8, 259) = of other predictors, the interaction term between perceived utilitarian
75.13*** 50.26*** 49.76*** value and industry context had a significant negative effect on future
R2 .59*** .61*** .61***
behavioral intention [b = − 0.36, t(259) = − 3.07, p < .01; H5a]. The
Note: DV = dependent variable. Values are unstandardized regression co­ interaction term between perceived hedonic value and industry context
efficients. Gender and anthropomorphism were dummy coded. BI = behavioral had a significant positive effect on future behavioral intention [b = 0.34,
intention. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. t(259) = 2.89, p < .01; H5b]. When the industry context was utilitarian
(industry context = 0), the impact of perceived utilitarian value on
model explained 59 % of the variance in future behavioral intention [R2 future behavioral intention became stronger [b = 0.70, t(259) = 7.54, p
= 0.59, F(5, 262) = 75.13, p < .001]. Perceived utilitarian value [b = < .01], and the impact of perceived hedonic value on future behavioral
0.49, t(262) = 8.20, p < .001; H3a] and perceived hedonic value [b = intention decreased and became insignificant [b = 0.18, t(259) = 1.97, p
0.38, t(262) = 6.35, p < .001; H3b] had significant positive effects on > .05]. By contrast, in a hedonic context (industry context = 1), the
future behavioral intention. H3 was accordingly supported. impact of perceived hedonic value on future behavioral intention was
amplified [b = 0.52, t(259) = 6.78, p < .01] and the impact of perceived
5.2.2. Moderating effect of previous experience utilitarian value on future behavioral intention weakened [b = 0.34, t
In the second step, to test H4, previous experience was used as a (259) = 4.50, p < .01]. These results are illustrated in Fig. 6.
moderator. The dependent variable (future behavioral intention), in­
dependent variables (perceived utilitarian value and perceived hedonic 6. Discussions
value), and control variables (age, gender, and the service robot’s
anthropomorphism) were the same as in the prior model. To control for 6.1. Theoretical contributions
potential multi-collinearity, perceived values and previous experience
were mean-centered. Detailed results are presented in Table 4 and Fig. 3. This research makes several important theoretical contributions.
First, it responds to calls and enriches the human–robot interaction
literature by empirically examining individuals’ long-term usage of
service robots after actual interactions (Lu et al., 2020). Among studies
of human–robot interaction, previous work was often conceptual and
concentrated on users’ initial adoption of service robots (Lu et al., 2020).
Scholars mainly focused on customers’ anticipated interaction experi­
ence (e.g. Lin & Mattila, 2021) and willingness to adopt service robots or
adoption intentions (e.g. Lin et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2019; Yoganathan
et al., 2021). Such research often entailed hypothetical service scenarios
or simulated interactions (e.g. Choi et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2021; Yoga­
nathan et al., 2021) rather than actual experiences. Studies have shown
that understanding individuals’ actual behavior and long-term usage of
service robots is essential for advancing this research stream (Lu et al.,
2020). The current research addressed these limitations by conducting
Fig. 3. Results of the moderating effect of previous experience in Study 2. Note: an empirical study on users’ perceptions and behavior after experiencing
Values are unstandardized regression coefficients. **p < .01, ***p < .001. real human–robot service interactions. Thus, this research adds insights

7
Y. Hu Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645

Fig. 4. Interaction effect of perceived values and previous experience on future behavioral intention.

Fig. 5. Results of the moderating effect of industry context in Study 2. Note: Values are unstandardized regression coefficients. Industry context (utilitarian-oriented
= 0, hedonic-oriented = 1). **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Fig. 6. Joint effect of perceived values and industry context on future behavioral intention.

to the literature on customers’ long-term attitudes and behaviors toward
using service robots.
Second, the findings of this research extend the value cocreation
literature (e.g. Järvi, Keränen, Ritala, & Vilko, 2020) in the human­
–robot interaction context; results conceptualize perceived utilitarian
value and hedonic value in human–robot service interaction. This work
also confirms the nature and measurements of perceived values around
using service robots based on a set of studies. In human–robot interac­
tion, perceived utilitarian value mainly reflects the efficacy, efficiency,
and convenience of interacting with robots, coincident with prior liter­
ature (e.g. Lu et al., 2019). Perceived hedonic value revolves around the
fun, excitement, entertainment, and novelty of interacting with robots.
Both dimensions of perceived value appear to positively influence users’
attitudes towards service robots as well as these users’ future behavioral
intention. These findings echo with the functional elements and
social-emotional elements of accepting service robots (Wirtz et al.,
2018).
Third, this research adds to the literature on customers’ attitudes
towards service robots (e.g. Choi, Choi, et al., 2020; Fuentes-Moraleda
et al., 2020; Ivanov, Webster, & Seyyedi, 2018; Tung & Au, 2018) and
provides an answer to the ongoing debate around whether using service
robots is a gimmick or an improvement from the value perspective. The

8
Y. Hu
findings of this research point to the fundamental role of perceived
utilitarian value: it is a key contributor to users’ positive attitudes to­
wards service robots and functions as a boundary condition in the
relationship between perceived hedonic value and users’ positive atti­
tudes. This finding aligns with research on the vantage vs. qualifying
attributes of services (Hui, Zhao, Fan, & Au, 2004). In the current
context, perceived utilitarian value is the main qualifying attribute
determining users’ attitudes towards service robots; perceived hedonic
value represents the vantage attribute making the experience more
enjoyable. Only when users perceive high levels of hedonic and utili­
tarian values are they likely to consider service robots an improvement.
If a service robot fails to provide sufficient utilitarian value, then he­
donic value can negatively affect users’ attitudes. These users may find
service robots gimmicky as a result.
Fourth, this research takes both the characteristics of customers/
users and the nature of service contexts into consideration. It uncovers
two main conditions in which the relative importance of perceived
utilitarian and hedonic values vary: a user’s previous experience and the
industry setting. In accordance with previous research on the service
experience (Dedeoglu et al., 2018), when users are less experienced,
perceived hedonic value is the prominent driver of future behavior.
However, as users become more experienced, the utilitarian value of
human–robot interaction becomes more salient in users’ future
behavior. The other meaningful moderator identified in this study is the
industry context (i.e. utilitarian vs. hedonic). This research revealed a
joint effect of industry context and perceived values wherein certain
value types were more effective when aligned with the industry context
(Chi, Gursoy, & Chi, 2020; Deb & Lomo-David, 2020; Prebensen &
Rosengren, 2016). Specifically, in a more utilitarian setting, perceived
utilitarian value was more prominent in shaping users’ future behavior.
A similar pattern emerged in the hedonic industry context.
6.2. Practical implications
6.2.1. Practical implications for destination marketing and management
This research provides critical insights for destination marketing and
management. Being an integrative collection of a variety of tourism and
hospitality sectors, tourist destinations have experienced great changes
associated with the rapid development of technologies such as service
robots and AI. Surprisingly, discussion on how to respond to service
robots and AI technologies and benefit from them from the perspective
of destination marketing and management is scarce. Findings of this
research add to the discussion from the policy making, planning, man­
agement, and marketing aspects.
First, it is the global trend that destinations embrace the robots, AI
and automation technologies (Webster & Ivanov, 2020) and expect to
gain competitive advantages from them. When making policies and
planning, destination stakeholders should be aware of these advanced
technological developments (Cimbaljević, Stankov, & Pavlukovi). When
making decisions of whether a destination should adopt service robots
and related technologies, destination planners and managers should
take the destination’s, the supporting businesses’, and their target
markets’ characteristics into account (Femenia-Serra, Neuhofer, &
Ivars-Baidal, 2019). While ‘smart destination’ has become popular, it
may not be the best direction for all destinations. Therefore, destination
managers and planners should pay close attention to tourists’ charac­
teristics. For instance, previous studies have found that users’ age and
gender play important roles in determining their attitudes toward
accepting service robots (e.g. Hudson et al., 2017; Ivanov, Webster, &
Seyyedi, 2018). The current research confirms that the actual users with
human-robot service interaction experiences are indeed the younger
population; and there are more male users than female users in this
research. That is to say, if the target markets of a destination are rela­
tively elder and not tech-savvy, ‘smart tourism’ may not be a good
choice.
If a destination and its supporting businesses decide to adopt service
9
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645
robots and related technologies after careful evaluation, when deploying
service robots, managers should take the nature of the destination (i.e.
hedonic or utilitarian) into consideration. If a destination or a business is
more utilitarian-oriented (e.g. historical/cultural destinations), then
service robots’ utilitarian features must be more prominent. For
instance, guidance robots at museums should provide accurate infor­
mation and be efficient; entertainment features should be added only
after implementing these basic functions. Relatedly, check-in robots at
airports should prioritize service efficiency and accuracy before focusing
on social interactions such as small talk with customers. If a destination
and its service interaction are more hedonic, then hedonic attributes
should be magnified to ensure long-term customer usage. For example,
when designing social robots at amusement parks, fun and entertaining
features should be the primary concern.
Moreover, in destination marketing and campaigns, destination
managers and marketers should also pay attention to tourists’ past ex­
periences with service robots and tailor marketing appeals accordingly.
In the initial adoption stage, service robots appear relatively new to most
tourists. Tourists may therefore be more drawn to these robots’ hedonic
and novel attributes (de Kervenoael et al., 2020). Thus, destination
marketing organizations could highlight these novel innovations in
marketing campaigns. Once users become more familiar with these
entities, or if a certain destination or organization’s target market is
especially tech-savvy, then service firms can highlight the functionality,
utility, and helpfulness of service robots instead.
6.2.2. Practical implications for the tourism and hospitality industry
This research also offers meaningful practical implications for man­
agers and professionals in tourism and hospitality organizations. First,
while some managers in this industry have welcomed service robots as a
positive innovation (de Kervenoael et al., 2020; Lin & Mattila, 2021),
others remain unsure of whether service robots are worth adopting at
the service frontline. This research suggests that special attention should
be paid to the values customers gain from human–robot service inter­
action before deploying (or planning to deploy) service robots. Both
hedonic and utilitarian values are critical contributors to customers’
evaluations. However, utilitarian value is essential to ensuring cus­
tomers’ positive attitudes towards using service robots. If a robot is
entertaining but has low functional value (e.g. the robot is inconvenient
and inefficient), then its novelty will wane, and this innovation will
falter in the long run. This notion is highly useful for companies that
design and produce service robots. Although a service robot’s hedonic
features can be eye-catching, these characteristics are vantage attributes
that enhance users’ service evaluations and help a service robot differ­
entiate itself from others (Yoganathan et al., 2021). Service robots’
utilitarian aspects are qualifying attributes vital to fostering users’
positive evaluations.
Second, findings of this research add to the discussion on balancing
human employees and service robots in the future tourism and hospi­
tality economy (Ivanov et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019; Vatan & Dogan,
2021). This research suggests that, at the current stage, once users gain
sufficient experiences interacting with service robots, they are likely to
pay more attention to the utilitarian value of service robots rather than
the hedonic one. This is in accordance with previous findings that ser­
vice robots may progress to outperform human employees in mechanism
and analytical intelligence but not in intuitive and empathetic intelli­
gence in the foreseeable future (Huang & Rust, 2018). Tourism and
hospitality organizations should adopt service robots to complement
employees and coach them with updated abilities and skills to cope with
the ongoing technology innovations (Xu et al., 2020). Employees should
cultivate their emotional and social skills to cocreate hedonic value for
customers and thrive in the long run.
Moreover, when deploying service robots and human employees to
leverage customer experiences, managers should take the industry
context (e.g. restaurant, airport, destination attraction, museum) into
consideration. Service robots deployed in service settings should
Y. Hu
correspond with the given industry context. It should be noted that,
when the hedonic value of the service robots is not quite up to cus­
tomers’ expectations yet (e.g. customized services, personalized com­
munications, true empathy), tourism and hospitality firms should
deploy human employees to deliver the services instead (Wirtz et al.,
2018). Persistence to use service robots under such contexts may
backfire and bring negative consequences (Chi, Gursoy, & Chi, 2020).
7. Limitations and future research
Several limitations of this study present opportunities for future
research. First, this research examined the perceptions and behavior of
consumers who had interacted with service robots at least once; non-
users were not included in the sample. Researchers are thus encour­
aged to explore why some individuals are reluctant to use service robots
and the associated barriers to adoption. Second, as a pioneering effort to
investigate the perceived values of human–robot service interaction, this
research focused on the two classic dimensions of perceived value most
common in the customer service literature: perceived utilitarian value
and perceived hedonic value (Ryu et al., 2020; Voss et al., 2003).
However, classifications of perceived values vary across contexts. For
instance, perceived hedonic value can be further categorized as novelty
value and emotional value in hotel settings (e.g. Dedeoglu et al., 2018).
Perceived utilitarian value includes functional value and value for
money; hedonic value consists of emotional value, social value, and
novelty value in the context of adventure tourism (Williams & Soutar,
2009). Future studies should hence clarify sub-dimensions of perceived
values in human–robot service interaction.
Third, our study sample hailed from mainland China; findings may
not be generalizable to other cultures. Future studies could extend the
theoretical framework of this research to additional cultural contexts.
Fourth, this research classified the industry setting as either utilitarian
or hedonic based on the characteristics of a given industry sector. In
general, hotels, restaurants, and tourist destinations are considered
more hedonic (Prebensen & Rosengren, 2016), whereas airports, bus
and train stations, and banks are more utilitarian (Jiang & Wang, 2006;
Otterbring, 2017; Prebensen & Rosengren, 2016). However, in
hedonic-oriented service contexts such as the tourism and hospitality
industry, service robots’ utilitarian values may be more important than
hedonic values under certain circumstances. For example, check-in
service robots at a hotel’s front office are expected to be more func­
tional than entertaining, as the accuracy and efficiency of check-in is
particularly important to guests. Therefore, subsequent work could
focus on various types of service robots within a specific service sector to
uncover different robots’ value attributes. Lastly, future studies are
recommended to examine the antecedents of users’ perceived values
across service settings.
Author statement
Dr. Yaou Hu: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data analysis,
Writing-original draft, Writing-review & editing.
Funding
This research was supported by Jinan University Management
School Funding Program [GY21009]; The Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities, China [19JNLH10]; and The Institute for
Enterprise Development, Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong,
China.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
10
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645
References
Ackerman, E., Guizzo, E., & Shi, F. (2020). Robots help keep medical staff safe at COVID-
19 hospital. IEEE spectrum. https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robo
tics-hardware/video-friday-ubtech-robots-covid-19-shenzhen-hospital.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic
and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Schepers, J. (2020). Service robot
implementation: A theoretical framework and research agenda. Service Industries
Journal, 40(3–4), 203–225.
Borghi, M., & Mariani, M. M. (2021). Service robots in online reviews: Online robotic
discourse. Annals of Tourism Research, 87(C).
Chan, A. P. H., & Tung, V. W. S. (2019). Examining the effects of robotic service on brand
experience: The moderating role of hotel segment. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 36(4), 458–468.
Chi, O. H., Denton, G., & Gursoy, D. (2020). Artificially intelligent device use in service
delivery: A systematic review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 29(7), 757–786.
Chi, O. H., Gursoy, D., & Chi, C. G. (2020). Tourists’ attitudes toward the use of
artificially intelligent (AI) devices in tourism service delivery: Moderating role of
service value seeking. Journal of Travel Research, Article 0047287520971054.
Chiu, C. M., Wang, E. T., Fang, Y. H., & Huang, H. Y. (2014). Understanding customers’
repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: The roles of utilitarian value,
hedonic value and perceived risk. Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 85–114.
Choi, Y., Choi, M., Oh, M., & Kim, S. (2020). Service robots in hotels: Understanding the
service quality perceptions of human-robot interaction. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 29(6), 613–635.
Choi, S., Liu, S. Q., & Mattila, A. S. (2019). “How may I help you?” says a robot:
Examining language styles in the service encounter. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 82, 32–38.
Choi, S., Mattila, A. S., & Bolton, L. E. (2020). To err is human (-oid): How do consumers
react to robot service failure and recovery? Journal of Service Research, Article
1094670520978798.
Choi, Y., Oh, M., Choi, M., & Kim, S. (2021). Exploring the influence of culture on tourist
experiences with robots in service delivery environment. Current Issues in Tourism, 24
(5), 717–733.
Christou, P., Simillidou, A., & Stylianou, M. C. (2020). Tourists’ perceptions regarding
the use of anthropomorphic robots in tourism and hospitality. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(11), 3665–3683.
Cimbaljević, M., Stankov, U., & Pavluković, V. (2019). Going beyond the traditional
destination competitiveness–reflections on a smart destination in the current
research. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(20), 2472–2477.
Deb, M., & Lomo-David, E. (2020). On the hedonic versus utilitarian message appeal in
building buying intention in the luxury hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 45, 615–621.
Dedeoglu, B. B., Bilgihan, A., Ye, B. H., Buonincontri, P., & Okumus, F. (2018). The
impact of servicescape on hedonic value and behavioral intentions: The importance
of previous experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 72, 10–20.
van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S. M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A. L., Grewal, D., et al.
(2017). Domo arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social presence in
organizational frontlines and customers’ service experiences. Journal of Service
Research, 20(1), 43–58.
Femenia-Serra, F., Neuhofer, B., & Ivars-Baidal, J. A. (2019). Towards a
conceptualisation of smart tourists and their role within the smart destination
scenario. Service Industries Journal, 39(2), 109–133.
Fuentes-Moraleda, L., Díaz-Pérez, P., Orea-Giner, A., Muñoz-Mazón, A., & Villacé-
Molinero, T. (2020). Interaction between hotel service robots and humans: A hotel-
specific service robot acceptance model (sRAM). Tourism Management Perspectives,
36, 100751.
Gretzel, U., & Murphy, J. (2019). Making sense of robots: Consumer discourse on robots
in tourism and hospitality service settings. Robots, artificial intelligence, and service
automation in travel, tourism and hospitality (pp. 93–104). Bingley: Emerald
Publishing Limited.
Hou, Y., Zhang, K., & Li, G. (2021). Service robots or human staff: How social crowding
shapes tourist preferences. Tourism Management, 83, 104242.
Hu, Y., & Kim, H. J. (2018). Positive and negative eWOM motivations and hotel
customers’ eWOM behavior: Does personality matter? International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 75, 27–37.
Hu, Y., Min, H., & Su, N. (2021). How sincere is an apology? Recovery satisfaction in a
robot service failure context. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 45(6),
1022–1043.
Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service
Research, 21(2), 155–172.
Hudson, J., Orviska, M., & Hunady, J. (2017). People’s attitudes to robots in caring for
the elderly. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(2), 199–210.
Hui, M. K., Zhao, X., Fan, X., & Au, K. (2004). When does the service process matter? A
test of two competing theories. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 465–475.
Ivanov, S., Gretzel, U., Berezina, K., Sigala, M., & Webster, C. (2019). Progress on
robotics in hospitality and tourism: A review of the literature. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Technology, 10(4), 489–521.
Ivanov, S., Seyitoğlu, F., & Markova, M. (2020). Hotel managers’ perceptions towards the
use of robots: A mixed-methods approach. Information Technology & Tourism, 22(4),
505–535.
Ivanov, S., & Webster, C. (2019). Perceived appropriateness and intention to use service
robots in tourism. Information and communication technologies in tourism 2019. Cham:
Springer.
Y. Hu
Ivanov, S., & Webster, C. (2020). Robots in tourism: A research agenda for tourism
economics. Tourism Economics, 26(7), 1065–1085.
Ivanov, S., Webster, C., & Garenko, A. (2018). Young Russian adults’ attitudes towards
the potential use of robots in hotels. Technology in Society, 55, 24–32.
Ivanov, S., Webster, C., & Seyyedi, P. (2018). Consumers’ attitudes towards the
introduction of robots in accommodation establishments. Tourism: An International
Interdisciplinary Journal, 66(3), 302–317.
Järvi, H., Keränen, J., Ritala, P., & Vilko, J. (2020). Value co-destruction in hotel
services: Exploring the misalignment of cognitive scripts among customers and
providers. Tourism Management, 77, 104030.
Jiang, Y., & Wang, C. L. (2006). The impact of affect on service quality and satisfaction:
The moderation of service contexts. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(4), 211–218.
Kazandzhieva, V., & Filipova, H. (2019). Customer attitudes toward robots in travel,
tourism, and hospitality: A conceptual framework. Robots, artificial intelligence, and
service automation in travel, tourism and hospitality. Emerald Publishing Limited.
de Kervenoael, R., Hasan, R., Schwob, A., & Goh, E. (2020). Leveraging human-robot
interaction in hospitality services: Incorporating the role of perceived value,
empathy, and information sharing into visitors’ intentions to use social robots.
Tourism Management, 78, 104042.
Kim, J. S. (2016). An extended technology acceptance model in behavioral intention
toward hotel tablet apps with moderating effects of gender and age. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(8), 1535–1553.
Kim, S. S., Kim, J., Badu-Baiden, F., Giroux, M., & Choi, Y. (2021). Preference for robot
service or human service in hotels? Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, 102795.
Kim, T. G., Lee, J. H., & Law, R. (2008). An empirical examination of the acceptance
behaviour of hotel front office systems: An extended technology acceptance model.
Tourism Management, 29(3), 500–513.
Lau, A. L., & McKercher, B. (2004). Exploration versus acquisition: A comparison of first-
time and repeat visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), 279–285.
Lee, S., & Kim, D. Y. (2018). The effect of hedonic and utilitarian values on satisfaction
and loyalty of Airbnb users. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 30(3), 1332–1351.
Lee, Y., Lee, S., & Kim, D. Y. (2021). Exploring hotel guests’ perceptions of using robot
assistants. Tourism Management Perspectives, 37, 100781.
Li, J. J., Bonn, M. A., & 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, 73, 172–181.
Lin, H., Chi, O. H., & Gursoy, D. (2020). Antecedents of customers’ acceptance of
artificially intelligent robotic device use in hospitality services. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 29(5), 530–549.
Lin, I. Y., & Mattila, A. S. (2021). The value of service robots from the hotel guest’s
perspective: A mixed-method approach. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 94, 102876.
Longoni, C., & Cian, L. (2020). Artificial intelligence in utilitarian vs. hedonic contexts:
The “word-of-machine” effect. Journal of Marketing, Article 0022242920957347.
Lu, L., Cai, R., & Gursoy, D. (2019). Developing and validating a service robot integration
willingness scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 36–51.
Lu, V. N., Wirtz, J., Kunz, W. H., Paluch, S., Gruber, T., Martins, A., & Patterson, P. G.
(2020). Service robots, customers, and service employees: What can we learn from
the academic literature and where are the gaps? Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, 30(3), 361–391.
McCartney, G., & McCartney, A. (2020). Rise of the machines: Towards a conceptual
service-robot research framework for the hospitality and tourism industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(12), 3835–3851.
McKercher, B., & Wong, D. Y. (2004). Understanding tourism behavior: Examining the
combined effects of prior visitation history and destination status. Journal of Travel
Research, 43(2), 171–179.
Melián-González, S., Gutiérrez-Taño, D., & Bulchand-Gidumal, J. (2021). Predicting the
intentions to use chatbots for travel and tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(2),
192–210.
Mende, M., Scott, M. L., van Doorn, J., Grewal, D., & Shanks, I. (2019). Service robots
rising: How humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory
consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 535–556.
Murphy, J., Gretzel, U., & Pesonen, J. (2019). Marketing robot services in hospitality and
tourism: The role of anthropomorphism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36
(7), 784–795.
Otterbring, T. (2017). Smile for a while: The effect of employee-displayed smiling on
customer affect and satisfaction. Journal of Service Management, 28(2), 284–304.
Ozturk, A. B., Nusair, K., Okumus, F., & Hua, N. (2016). The role of utilitarian and
hedonic values on users’ continued usage intention in a mobile hotel booking
environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, 106–115.
11
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 21 (2021) 100645
Park, S. (2020). Multifaceted trust in tourism service robots. Annals of Tourism Research,
81, 102888.
Prebensen, N. K., & Rosengren, S. (2016). Experience value as a function of hedonic and
utilitarian dominant services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 28(1), 113–135.
Qiu, H., Li, M., Shu, B., & Bai, B. (2020). Enhancing hospitality experience with service
robots: The mediating role of rapport building. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 29(3), 247–268.
Reis, J., Melão, N., Salvadorinho, J., Soares, B., & Rosete, A. (2020). Service robots in the
hospitality industry: The case of Henn-na hotel, Japan. Technology in Society, 63,
101423.
Ryu, K., Han, H., & Jang, S. S. (2010). Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian
values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 416–432.
Sánchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodríguez, R. M., & Moliner, M. A. (2006). Perceived value of
the purchase of a tourism product. Tourism Management, 27(3), 394–409.
Seyitoğlu, F., & Ivanov, S. (2021). Service robots as a tool for physical distancing in
tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(12), 1631–1634.
Shin, H. H., & Jeong, M. (2020). Guests’ perceptions of robot concierge and their
adoption intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32
(8), 2613–2633.
Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights,
floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression.
Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.
Suri, G., Gross, J. J., & McClelland, J. L. (2020). Value-based decision making: An
interactive activation perspective. Psychological Review, 127(2), 153.
Su, Y., & Teng, W. (2018). Contemplating museums’ service failure: Extracting the
service quality dimensions of museums from negative on-line reviews. Tourism
Management, 69, 214–222.
Tung, V. W. S., & Au, N. (2018). Exploring customer experiences with robotics in
hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(7),
2680–2697.
Tung, V. W. S., & Law, R. (2017). The potential for tourism and hospitality experience
research in human-robot interactions. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 29(10), 2498–2513.
Tussyadiah, I. (2020). A review of research into automation in tourism: Launching the
annals of tourism research curated collection on artificial intelligence and robotics in
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 81, 102883.
Tussyadiah, I., & Miller, G. (2019). Nudged by a robot: Responses to agency and
feedback. Annals of Tourism Research, 78, 102752.
Tussyadiah, I. P., & Park, S. (2018). Consumer evaluation of hotel service robots.
Information and communication technologies in tourism 2018. Cham: Springer.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Zach, F. J., & Wang, J. (2020). Do travelers trust intelligent service
robots? Annals of Tourism Research, 81, 102886.
Vatan, A., & Dogan, S. (2021). What do hotel employees think about service robots? A
qualitative study in Turkey. Tourism Management Perspectives, 37, 100775.
Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3),
310–320.
Wan, L. C., Chan, E. K., & Luo, X. (2021). Robots come to rescue: How to reduce
perceived risk of infectious disease in Covid19-stricken consumers? Annals of
Tourism Research, 88, 103069.
Webster, C., & Ivanov, S. (2020). Future tourism in a robot-based economy: A perspective
article. Tourism Review, 75(1), 329–332.
Webster, C., & Ivanov, S. (2020). Robots in travel, tourism and hospitality: Key findings from
a global study. Varna: Zangador.
Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an
adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 413–438.
Wirtz, J., Patterson, P. G., Kunz, W. H., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S., & Martins, A.
(2018). Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service
Management, 29(5), 907–931.
Xu, S., Stienmetz, J., & Ashton, M. (2020). How will service robots redefine leadership in
hotel management? A delphi approach. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 32(6), 2217–2237.
Yoganathan, V., Osburg, V. S., Kunz, W. H., & Toporowski, W. (2021). Check-in at the
Robo-desk: Effects of automated social presence on social cognition and service
implications. Tourism Management, 85, 104309.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Zeng, Z., Chen, P. J., & Lew, A. A. (2020). From high-touch to high-tech: COVID-19
drives robotics adoption. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 724–734.