Hotel customers’ behavioral intentions toward service robots: the role of utilitarian and hedonic values
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate the effects of hotel customers’ perceived utilitarian and hedonic values on their intention to use service robots. In addition, the influences of innovativeness, ease of use and compatibility on hotel customers’ perceived utilitarian and hedonic values were examined. Design/methodology/approach The data of the current study was collected from 11 countries including the USA, UK, Turkey, Spain, Romania, Japan, Israel, India, Greece, Canada and Brazil. A structural equation modeling was used to test the study hypotheses. Findings The results indicated that hotel customers’ intention to use service robots was positively influenced by their utilitarian and hedonic value perceptions. In addition, customers’ perceptions of robots’ ease of use and compatibility had a positive impact on their perceived utilitarian and hedonic values. Originality/value The findings of the current study provide unique contributions in the context of hospitality robotics technology adoption literature. In addition, this study provides valuable insights and novel opportunities for hospitality decision-makers to capitalize on, as they strive to strategize the integration of robot-based services into their operations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it