Measuring consumer preferences for automated agents in a hotel context

Measuring consumer preferences for

automated agents in a hotel context

Differences between hedonic and utilitarian travel motives

Master thesis defense

Shu Han, Chuang

First supervisor: dr. Jenny van Doorn

Second supervisor: dr. Lara Lobschat

›

Benefits of employing automated agents in the hotel:

›

Embodiment of automated agent:

›

Social interaction

(Nass et al., 1997; Fogg & Nass, 1997; Nass & Moon, 2000)

›

Travel motives

(Babin & Kim, 2001)

›

Theory of human-agent interaction

(Eimler et al., 2010)

Johnson (2017), Cook et al., (2003) IOT Guardian (2017) Multi-lingual Solomon (2017) Labor cost Bitner et al. (2000) ASP Van Doorn et al. (2017)

Smart environment Physical embodied agent

2. Research questions

1. To what extent does the

physical embodiment

and

anthropomorphism

of a robot have an impact on hotel

service preference?

2. To what extent does the level of

social interaction

and

Choice-based conjoint analysis

› 2 surveys

› 3 models

Sample characteristics

› 164 valid respondents

› NARS

(Nomura et al., 2004)

:

•

situation of interaction

with robots (3.47)

•

social influence of

robots (2.87)

•

emotions in interaction

with robots (4.08)

-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 human-like

robot virtual agent machine-like robot

Type of embodiment -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 passive active Social interaction

Hypotheses for main effect Result

H1 Consumers prefer a machine-like robot over a virtual agent. Supported

H2 Consumers prefer a human-like robot over a machine-like robot. Rejected

H3 Consumers prefer active social interaction over passive social interaction. Rejected

1. To what extent does the

physical embodiment

and

anthropomorphism

of a

robot have an impact on hotel service preference?

2. To what extent does the level of

social interaction

and

traveling motives

have

an impact on hotel service preference?

O ‘propinquity’ of ’the need to belong theory’ X ‘similarity’ of ‘the need to belong theory’ X ‘similarity’ of need to belong (Duck & Pittman, 1994), the ‘reciprocal rule’ in the social exchange theory (Fogg, 2002),

the theory of mind (Peters, 2006; Breazeal et al., 2004; Marsella & Pynadath, 2005)

O

important in understanding customer satisfaction

2. Managerial implication

› Type of embodiment:

› Social interaction:

•

passive, i.e. only talk when the guests ask for

› Travel motives:

› Absolute willingness to pay: set price €100 - €110 to maximize the profit

Smart environment Speaker Human-like robot

1: Service agent

lovers 2: Savers 3: Human-like robot lovers 4: You’d better know me

Size (%) 32.33 28.80 22.63 16.24

Type of embodiment machine-like

(U=0.4115) machine-like (U=0.4115) human-like (U=0.9058) machine-like (U=0.2517)

Social interaction active (U=0.4115) passive (U=1.592) active (U=0.0776) passive (U=0.4209)

Price sensitivity second least

(U=-0.8991) most (U=-1.0216) least (U=-0.3714) second most (U=-0.9105)

No-choice option least preferred

(U=-4.3341), (U=-2.2179) (U=-1.8754) most preferred (U=-0.3382),

Negative attitude towards social influence of robot

less (U=-0.2778) highest (U=0.4944) least (-0.3331) second highest

(U=0.1166)

Maximize

3. Limitations

Limitations

Future research

Research setting

Not generalizable in

different roles or setting in

the hotel context

Study if there is preference difference between

agent used in public (e.g. front desk) and

private area (e.g. room) in hotel

Data

Low rate of passing

Thanks for your attention J

Attributes Levels Utility Standard

error Wald p-value Mean

Type of embodiment human-like robot -0.0453 0.0317 34.6375 3.00E-08** -0.0453

virtual agent -0.1298 0.0323 -0.1298

machine-like

robot 0.1752 0.0306 0.1752

Social interaction Passive 0.2754 0.0238 134.1785 5.00E-31** 0.2754

active -0.2754 0.0238 -0.2754

Price -0.5854 0.0282 430.042 1.60E-95** -0.5854

Non option -2.2807 0.0765 889.3317 2.00E-195** -2.2807

Interaction effect 1

Model 2: aggregate

model Model 3: including interactioneffect Improvefit?

Npar 5 7 LL -2874.07 -2873.33 No BIC 5773.6404 5782.3538 No CAIC 5748.1411 5789.3538 No R² 0.1849 0.1851 Yes Adjusted R² 0.1835 0.1832 No Hit rate 0.670732 0.670732 No

P-value 2.0e-1093** 1.1e-1094**

Absolute WTP

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% €100 €110 €120 Pr ob ab il it y Demand function best option best option for free

Questionnaire items

Subscale

I would feel uneasy if robots really had emotions

2

Something bad might happen if robots developed into living beings

2

I would feel relaxed talking with robots*

3

I would feel uneasy if I was given a job where I had to use robots

1

If robots had emotions, I would be able to make friends with them*

3

I feel comforted being with robots that have emotions*

3

The word ‘robot’ means nothing to me

1

I would feel nervous operating a robot in front of other people

1

I would hate the idea that robots or artificial intelligences were making

judgements about things

1

I would feel very nervous just standing in front of a robot

1

I feel that if I depend on robots too much, something bad might happen

2

I would feel paranoid talking with a robot

1

I am concerned that robots would be a bad influence on children

2