en pl
en pl

Central European Management Journal

Show issue
Year 6/2022 
Volume 30 
Issue 2

Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Response to Service Robot Anthropomorphism in Banking

Martin Aubel
ISM University of Management and Economics

Indre Pikturniene

Yannick Joye
ISM University of Management and Economics

6/2022 30 (2) Central European Management Journal

DOI 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.74

Abstract

Purpose: This article explores how anthropomorphized service robots shape consumer risk perceptions and risk behavior via uncanniness as a function of individual differences in banking.

Methodology: An online between-subjects experiment (N = 293), set in a fictitious bank, featuring four levels of service robot anthropomorphism (low, medium, high, human), measured risk perceptions (psychological, functional, privacy, time), and risk behavior as DVs, uncanniness as mediator, technology readiness, and behavioral inhibition as moderators.

Findings: Risk perceptions are the lowest for medium (vs. high) anthropomorphism and are mediated by uncanniness. Risk behavior remains unaffected by the manipulation. Technology readiness overall attenuates the main effect on time risk perception but amplifies it for high anthropomorphism, whereas high behavioral inhibition increases risk behavior under the exposure of low anthropomorphism.

Implication: Banks who plan to place robots in service functions should be mostly concerned about experiential rather than behavioral consequences and are advised to use medium anthropomorphism robots since they appear to qualify as viable substitutes for human bank tellers.

Value: We contribute to the service robot and anthropomorphism literature by (1) distinguishing between dimensions of risk perceptions, (2) measuring actual risk behavior, and (3) setting our study in a business and marketing relevant context: banking.

References

  1. Ackerman, E. (2016). Study: Nobody wants social robots that look like humans because they threaten our identity. IEEE Spectrum, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aggarwal, P. and McGill, A.L. (2007). Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1086/518544. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alhakami, A.S. and Slovic, P. (1994). A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085–1096, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, C. and Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.324. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bechara, A., Damasio, A.R., Damasio, H., and Anderson, S.W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50, 7–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blut, M., Wang, C., Wünderlich, N.V. and Brock, C. (2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: a meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–27, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y. [Google Scholar]
  7. Carver, C. S. and White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333, https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dholakia, U. (2001). A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11–12), 1340–1362, https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006479. [Google Scholar]
  9. Epley, N. (2018). A Mind like Mine: The Exceptionally Ordinary Underpinnings of Anthropomorphism. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3(4), 591–598, https://doi.org/10.1086/699516. [Google Scholar]
  10. Epley, N., Waytz, A. and Cacioppo, J.T. (2007). On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864. [Google Scholar]
  11. Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S.M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S. [Google Scholar]
  12. Goudey, A. and Bonnin, G. (2016). Must smart objects look human? Study of the impact of anthropomorphism on the acceptance of companion robots. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 31(2), 2–20, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2051570716643961. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gray, H. M., Gray, K., and Wegner, D.M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gray, K. and Wegner. D. (2012). Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition, 125(1), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.00. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gursoy, D. (2019). A critical review of determinants of information search behavior and utilization of online reviews in decision making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.003. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gursoy, D., Chi, O.H., Lu, L. and Nunkoo, R. (2019). Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kiesler, S. and Goetz, J. (2002). Mental models of robotic assistants. In CHI '02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 576–577). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/506443.506491. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, S.-Y., Schmitt, B.H., and Thalmann, N.M. (2019). Eliza in the uncanny valley: anthropomorphizing consumer robots increases their perceived warmth but decreases liking. Marketing Letters, 30, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-019-09485-9. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim, S. and McGill, A.L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or Gaming the Slot Machine? Power, Anthropomorphism, and Risk Perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1086/658148. [Google Scholar]
  20. Koschate, M., Potter, R., Bremner, P., and Levine, M. (2016). Overcoming the uncanny valley: Displays of emotions reduce the uncanniness of humanlike robots. 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451773. [Google Scholar]
  21. Landwehr, J.R., McGill, A. L. and Herrmann, A. (2011). It's got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive "facial" expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.3.132. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lejuez, C.W., Read, J.P., Kahler, C.W., Richards, J.B., Ramsey, S.E., Stuart, G.L., Strong, D. R. and Brown, R.A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk-taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 8(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898x.8.2.75. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lu, L., Cai, R., and Gursoy, D. (2019). Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.005. [Google Scholar]
  24. Malhotra, N., Kim, S. S. and Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15, 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mathur, M. B. and Reichling, D. B. (2016). Navigating a social world with robot partners: A quantitative cartography of the uncanny valley. Cognition, 146, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.008. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mathur, M.B., Reichling, D.B., Lunardini, F., Geminiani, A., Antonietti, A., Ruitjen, P.A.M., Levitan, C.A., Nave, G., Manfredi, D., Bessette-Symons, B., Szuts, A., and Azcel, B. (2020). Uncanny but not confusing: Multisite study of perceptual category confusion in the Uncanny Valley. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.029. [Google Scholar]
  27. McInnis, D.J. and Folkes V.J. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mills, B., Reyna, V.F., and Estrada, S. (2008). Explaining Contradictory Relations Between Risk Perception and Risk-Taking. Psychological Science, 19(5), 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02104.x. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mori, M. (1970). The Uncanny Valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811. [Google Scholar]
  30. Müller, B.C.N., Gao, X., Nijssen, S.R.R. and Damen, T.G.E. (2020). I, Robot: How Human Appearance and Mind Attribution Relate to the Perceived Danger of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 691–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00663-8. [Google Scholar]
  31. Parasuraman, A. and Colby, C.L. (2014). An Updated and Streamlined Technology Readiness Index: TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1094670514539730. [Google Scholar]
  32. Puzakova, M., and Kwak, H. (2017). Should anthropomorphized brands engage customers? The impact of social crowding on brand preferences. Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0211. [Google Scholar]
  33. Reyna, V.F. and Farley, F. (2006). Risk and Rationality in Adolescent Decision Making: Implications for Theory, Practice, and Public Policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1529-1006.2006.00026.x. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., and Krämer, N.C. (2014). How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 422–439, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.066. [Google Scholar]
  35. Schmitt, B. (2019). From Atoms to Bits and Back: A Research Curation on Digital Technology and Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 825–832, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz038. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sheeran, P., Harris, P. R. and Epton, T. (2014). Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 511–543, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033065. [Google Scholar]
  37. Slovic, P. and Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 322–325. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8721.2006.00461.x. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tussyadiah, I.P. and Park, S. (2018). Consumer Evaluation of Hotel Service Robots. In: B. Stangl and J. Pesonen (eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2018 (pp. 308–320). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72923-7_24. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683. [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S.M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A.L., Grewal, D. and Petersen, J. A. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1094670516679272. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wan, J. and Aggarwal, P. (2015). Befriending Mr. Clean: The role of anthropomorphism in consumer-brand relationships. In: S. Fournier, M. Breazeale, and J. Avery (eds.), Strong brands, strong relationships (pp. 119–134). London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315767079. [Google Scholar]
  42. Weis, P.P. and Wiese, E. (2017). Cognitive Conflict as Possible Origin of the Uncanny Valley. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1599–1603. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1541931213601763 [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Response to Service Robot Anthropomorphism in Banking. (2022). Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Response to Service Robot Anthropomorphism in Banking. Central European Management Journal, 30(2), 26–42. https://doi.org/ 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.74 (Original work published 6/2022AD)

MLA style

“Risk Perception And Risk Behavior In Response To Service Robot Anthropomorphism In Banking”. 6/2022AD. Central European Management Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, 2022, pp. 26–42.

Chicago style

“Risk Perception And Risk Behavior In Response To Service Robot Anthropomorphism In Banking”. Central European Management Journal, Central European Management Journal, 30, no. 2 (2022): 26–42. doi: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.74.