Users taking the blame? How service failure, recovery, and robot design affect user attributions and retention.

Nika Meyer Née Mozafari, Melanie Schwede, Maik Hammerschmidt, Welf Hermann Weiger
Author Information
  1. Nika Meyer Née Mozafari: University of Goettingen, Smart Retail Group, Platz Der Goettinger Sieben 3, 37073 Goettingen, Germany. ORCID
  2. Melanie Schwede: University of Goettingen, Smart Retail Group, Platz Der Goettinger Sieben 3, 37073 Goettingen, Germany. ORCID
  3. Maik Hammerschmidt: University of Goettingen, Smart Retail Group, Platz Der Goettinger Sieben 3, 37073 Goettingen, Germany. ORCID
  4. Welf Hermann Weiger: Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. ORCID

Abstract

Firms use robots to deliver an ever-expanding range of services. However, as service failures are common, service recovery actions are necessary to prevent user churn. This research further suggests that firms need to know how to design service robots that avoid alienating users in case of service failures. Robust evidence across two experiments demonstrates that users attribute successful service outcomes internally, while robot-induced service failures are blamed on the firm (and not the robot), confirming the well-known self-serving bias. While this external attributional shift occurs regardless of the robot design (i.e., it is the same for warm vs. competent robots), the findings imply that service recovery minimizes the undesirable external shift and that this effect is particularly pronounced for warm robots. For practitioners, this implies prioritizing service robots with a warm design for maximizing user retention for either type of service outcome (i.e., success, failure, and failure with recovery). For theory, this work demonstrates that attribution represents a meaningful mechanism to explain the proposed relationships.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12525-022-00613-4.

Keywords

References

  1. Am Psychol. 1996 Dec;51(12):1213-30 [PMID: 8962530]
  2. Br J Soc Psychol. 2000 Jun;39 ( Pt 2):229-39 [PMID: 10907097]
  3. Int J Hosp Manag. 2021 Feb;93:102795 [PMID: 36919174]
  4. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Feb;11(2):77-83 [PMID: 17188552]
  5. J Appl Psychol. 2021 Oct;106(10):1557-1572 [PMID: 33030919]
  6. J Appl Psychol. 2001 Jun;86(3):386-400 [PMID: 11419799]
  7. Electron Mark. 2021;31(3):473-476 [PMID: 35603226]
  8. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Oct;14(10):457-63 [PMID: 20817592]
  9. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Dec;89(6):899-913 [PMID: 16393023]
  10. Front Psychol. 2018 Jun 15;9:861 [PMID: 29962981]
  11. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Sep 1;25(9):1248-1258 [PMID: 30010941]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0servicerobotsrecoverydesignfailurefailuresuserrobotwarmretentionusersdemonstratesexternalshiftieattributionServiceFirmsusedeliverever-expandingrangeservicesHowevercommonactions arenecessarypreventchurnresearchsuggestsfirmsneedknowavoidalienatingcaseRobustevidenceacrosstwoexperimentsattributesuccessfuloutcomesinternallyrobot-inducedblamedfirmconfirmingwell-knownself-servingbiasattributionaloccursregardlessvscompetentfindingsimplyminimizesundesirableeffectparticularlypronouncedpractitionersimpliesprioritizingmaximizingeithertypeoutcomesuccesstheoryworkrepresentsmeaningfulmechanismexplainproposedrelationshipsSupplementaryInformation:onlineversioncontainssupplementarymaterialavailable101007/s12525-022-00613-4Userstakingblame?affectattributionsHuman–robotinteractionResponsibilitySocialcognitionUser

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)