Factors Influencing Consumers’ Intention to Adopt Fashion Robot Advisors: Psychological Network Analysis

Abstract

Drawing upon the theory of human–robot interaction (HRI), this study examined the relations among perceived characteristics of fashion robot advisors (FRAs), consumers’ negative preconceptions toward robots, and positive dispositions toward technology to identify network differences in adoption and nonadoption groups. For interviews, pretests, and main data collection, we presented video clips of FRAs as stimuli. Based on the data (n = 464) collected via an online survey, we conducted psychological network analysis to explore defining factors that differentiate adoption and nonadoption groups. The results indicate that perceived characteristics of social intelligence, humanlikeness, and knowledgeableness combined with a positive disposition of technological self-efficacy lead to adoption of FRAs. This study contributes to the literature on the theory of HRI and technology acceptance models, particularly in fashion retail sectors. Furthermore, this study provides a new graphical approach to networks that conceptualizes shoppers’ adoption of technology as a complex interplay of psychological attributes.

Keywords

artificial intelligence (AI)fashion robot advisor fashion robotics human–robot interaction (HRI)robot retail robot psychological network analysis network analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartneck

Croft

Kulic

(2008, March). Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. In Proceedings of the third ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/16709/bartneckKulicCroftHRI2008.pdf?sequence=2

Beer

J. M.

Prakash

Mitzner

T. L.

Rogers

W. A.

(2011). Understanding robot acceptance. Human Factors and Aging Laboratory, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Bruner

G. C.

II Kumar

(2007). Gadget lovers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(3), 329–339.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Compeau

D. R.

Higgins

C. A.

(1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.

Danaher

Wang

Witten

D. M.

(2014). The joint graphical lasso for inverse covariance estimation across multiple classes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical Methodology, 76(2), 373–397.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

de Graaf

M. M.

Allouch

S. B.

Klamer

(2015). Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 1–14.

De Ruyter

Saini

Markopoulos

Van Breemen

(2005). Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interacting With Computers, 17(5), 522–541.

10.

Epskamp

Borsboom

Fried

E. I.

(2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 195–212.

11.

Epskamp

Fried

E. I.

(2018). A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychological Methods, 23(4), 617–634.

12.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

13.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Pearson Prentice Hall.

14.

Hancock

P. A.

Billings

D. R.

Schaefer

K. E.

Chen

J. Y. C.

de Visser

E. J.

Parasuraman

(2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517–527.

15.

Haslbeck

J. M. B.

Waldorp

L. J.

(2018, April 1). How well do network models predict observations? On the importance of predictability in network models. Behavior Research Methods, 50(2), 853–861.

16.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

17.

Krämer

N. C.

von der Pütten

Eimler

(2012). Human-agent and human-robot interaction theory: Similarities to and differences from human-human interaction. In Zacarias

de Oliveira

J. V.

(Eds.), Human-computer interaction: The agency perspective (Vol. 396, pp. 215–240). Springer.

18.

Madsen

Gregor

(2000). Measuring human-computer trust. In Proceedings of the 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.93.3874&rep=rep1&type=pdf

19.

Meuter

M. L.

Bitner

M. J.

Ostrom

A. L.

Brown

S. W.

(2005). Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 61–83.

20.

Murphy

Gretzel

Pesonen

(2019). Marketing robot services in hospitality and tourism: The role of anthropomorphism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(7), 784–795.

21.

Nomura

Kanda

Suzuki

Kato

(2008). Prediction of human behavior in human-robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(2), 442–451.

22.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

23.

Rijsdijk

S. A.

Hultink

E. J.

(2003). “Honey, have you seen our hamster?” Consumer evaluations of autonomous domestic products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(3), 204–216.

24.

Ruijten

P. A.

Haans

Ham

Midden

C. J.

(2019). Perceived human-likeness of social robots: Testing the Rasch model as a method for measuring anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(3), 477–494.

25.

Schermerhorn

Scheutz

(2009, November 2–6). Dynamic robot autonomy: Investigating the effects of robot decision-making in a human-robot team task. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1647314.1647328

26.

Singh

Arnold

Brady

Brown

(2019). Synergies at the intersection of retailing and organizational frontlines research. Journal of Retailing, 95(2), 90–93.

27.

SoftBank Robotics. (2019). Robots, improving “Phygital” experience for today’s empowered shoppers. https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/industries/retail

28.

Song

S. Y.

(2017). Modeling the consumer acceptance of retail service robots [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Tennessee. Trace, Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange.

29.

Song

S. Y.

Kim

Y.-K.

(2018). Theory of virtue ethics: Do consumers’ good traits predict their socially responsible consumption? Journal of Business Ethics, 152(4), 1159–1175.

30.

Srinivasan

S. S.

Anderson

Ponnavolu

(2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce: An exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 41–50.

31.

Stock

Nguyen

M. A.

(2019). Robotic psychology. What do we know about human-robot interaction and what do we still need to learn? In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/59633/0193.pdf

32.

Venkatesh

Morris

M. G.

Davis

G. B.

Davis

F. D.

(2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.