MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409624680 · doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2025.04.003

Information transparency, privacy concerns, and customers' behavioral intentions regarding AI-powered hospitality robots: A situational awareness perspective

2025· article· en· W4409624680 on OpenAlexaff
Yaou Hu, Hyounae Min

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospitalityTransparency (behavior)Perspective (graphical)Situational ethicsSituation awarenessInternet privacyBusinessRobotInformation privacyHospitality industryPublic relationsPsychologyComputer securityComputer scienceEngineeringTourismSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the theoretical lens of situational awareness, this research tests two competing models and an intervention to examine the effects of information transparency on customers' privacy concerns and behavioral intentions toward interacting with hospitality robots. An exploratory study and two experiments with artificial intelligence-powered anthropomorphic robots were performed. The exploratory study confirmed that information transparency is lacking in practice. Study 1 revealed that such transparency negatively affects customers' behavioral intentions by increasing their situational awareness, which in turn heightens their privacy concerns and reduces their behavioral intentions. Study 2 further identified privacy assurance as a means of mitigating the adverse impact of information transparency on customers' behavioral intentions; the effect of situational awareness on privacy concerns became non-significant when privacy assurance was provided. This research contributes to the hospitality and tourism literature on technological innovation and offers insights into ethically managing customers' privacy.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospitality and Tourism ManagementSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207