Social Robots in Service Contexts: Exploring the Rewards and Risks of Personalization and Re-embodiment

Social agents and robots are moving into front-line positions in brick and mortar services, taking on roles where they directly interact with customers. These agents could potentially recognize customers to personalize service. Will customers like this, or might they feel monitored and profiled? Robots could also re-embody (move their “personality” between one body and another) in order to take on multiple roles that are typically performed by different people. Will this make customers feel more taken care of, or will it raise concerns about the robot’s competence and expertise? Our work investigates when robots should and should not recognize customers and re-embody. Our online study used storyboards to present possible future interactions between robots and customers across several different service contexts. Our findings suggest that people generally accept robots identifying customers and taking on vastly different roles. However, in some contexts, these robot behaviors seem creepy and untrustworthy.

[1]  E. Greenleaf,et al.  MEASURING EXTREME RESPONSE STYLE , 1992 .

[2]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[3]  Paul Resnick,et al.  It's Creepy, But it Doesn't Bother Me , 2016, CHI.

[4]  Erik Stolterman,et al.  The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research , 2008 .

[5]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Experience Design meets Service Design: Method Clash or Marriage? , 2018, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[6]  Shigeki Sugano,et al.  Recognition for psychological boundary of robot , 2013, 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[7]  H. Triandis.  Individualism-collectivism and personality. , 2001, Journal of personality.

[8]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Personalization in HRI: A longitudinal field experiment , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[9]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Re-Embodiment and Co-Embodiment: Exploration of social presence for robots and conversational agents , 2019, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[10]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Judging a bot by its cover: An experiment on expectation setting for personal robots , 2010, 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[11]  John Zimmerman,et al.  A fieldwork of the future with user enactments , 2012, DIS '12.

[12]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Understanding users! Perception of privacy in human-robot interaction , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[13]  Aaron Steinfeld,et al.  Not Some Random Agent: Multi-person Interaction with a Personalizing Service Robot , 2020, 2020 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[14]  Tuck Siong Chung,et al.  Marketing Models of Service and Relationships , 2006 .

[15]  Kristina Höök,et al.  Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research , 2012, TCHI.

[16]  Jason Borenstein,et al.  Why Should We Gender? The Effect of Robot Gendering and Occupational Stereotypes on Human Trust and Perceived Competency , 2020, 2020 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[17]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines , 2006, DIS '06.

[18]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Rapidly Exploring Application Design Through Speed Dating , 2007, UbiComp.

[19]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Tell me more designing HRI to encourage more trust, disclosure, and companionship , 2016, 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[20]  Päivi Heikkilä,et al.  A Social Service Robot in a Shopping Mall: Expectations of the Management, Retailers and Consumers , 2017, HRI.

[21]  Victor R. Prybutok,et al.  A consumer perspective of E-service quality , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[22]  D. Scott McCrickard,et al.  Channeling Creativity : Using Storyboards and Claims to Encourage Collaborative Design , 2007 .

[23]  Markus Vincze,et al.  Designing a Service Robot for Public Space An “Action and Experiences” - Approach , 2014, 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[24]  Taezoon Park,et al.  When stereotypes meet robots: The double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human-robot interaction , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[25]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  The Snackbot: Documenting the design of a robot for long-term Human-Robot Interaction , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[26]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Social Boundaries for Personal Agents in the Interpersonal Space of the Home , 2020, CHI.

[27]  John Zimmerman,et al.  Speed Dating: Providing a Menu of Possible Futures , 2017 .

[28]  Jane Fulton Suri,et al.  Experience prototyping , 2000, DIS '00.

[29]  Joseph A. Paradiso,et al.  A mobile interactive robot for gathering structured social video , 2011, ACM Multimedia.

[30]  Seung-Hee Lee,et al.  Managing Nongranting of Customers' Requests in Commercial Service Encounters , 2011 .

[31]  Tetsuo Ono,et al.  ITACO: Effects to Interactions by Relationships between Humans and Artifacts , 2008, IVA.

[32]  Jonas Löwgren,et al.  Annotated portfolios and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge , 2013, INTR.

[33]  Heather Knight,et al.  A Robot Barista Comments on its Clients: Social Attitudes Toward Robot Data Use , 2019, 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[34]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents: , 1990 .

[35]  Daniel G. Bachrach,et al.  The Role of the Sales-Service Interface and Ambidexterity in the Evolving Organization , 2017 .