Organizations are facing fundamental changes in digitized work environments. These changes include the introduction of android and humanoid social robots designed to assist employees. The current research addresses whether and under what conditions employees accept such robots as lower-level managers, not just as assistants. The authors extend research on social robots with the expectation-disconfirmation paradigm. They examine how the interplay of expected and experienced performance-related and relational characteristics of robot-supervisors affect employees’ willingness to work with the robotic manager. Results from an online experiment with 7061 U.S. office workers reveal different effects for perceived performance-related and relational characteristics of a robot manager. For performance-related characteristics, employees’ willingness to work with robot managers follows an S-shaped pattern. A slight overfulfillment of expectations is associated with the highest levels of readiness. For relational characteristics, the results instead follow a degressive curve. Increasing positive experiences are associated with decreasing positive evaluations of willingness. Overall, employees indicate a preference for android robots over humanoid robots as managers. This research thus suggests tactics for the successful implementation of mixed human-robot teams and the effective introduction of social robots into lower-level management roles.
AguinisH.BradleyK. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
4.
AnzengruberJ.GoetzM. A.NoldH.WoelfleM. (2017). Effectiveness of managerial capabilities at different hierarchical levels. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2015-0451
5.
ArkesH. R.ShafferV. A.MedowM. A. (2007). Patients derogate physicians who use a computer-assisted diagnostic aid. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 27(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X06297391
6.
AroyoA. M.de BruyneJ.DheuO.Fosch-VillarongaE.GudkovA.HochH.JonesS.LutzC.SætraH.SolbergM.Tamò-LarrieuxA. (2021). Overtrusting robots: Setting a research agenda to mitigate overtrust in automation. Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 12(1), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0029
BabelF.HockP.KrausJ.BaumannM. (2022). Human-robot conflict resolution at an elevator - the effect of robot type, request politeness and modality. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 693–697). IEEE. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889387
9.
BaddeleyA. D.HitchG. (1993). The recency effect: Implicit learning with explicit retrieval?Memory & Cognition, 21(2), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202726
10.
BankinsS.FormosaP.GriepY.RichardsD. (2022). AI decision making with dignity? Contrasting workers’ justice perceptions of human and AI decision making in a human resource management context. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(3), 857–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10223-8
11.
BaronR.KennyD. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
12.
BezrukovaK.GriffithT. L.SpellC.RiceV.YangH. E. (2023). Artificial intelligence and groups: Effects of attitudes and discretion on collaboration. Group & Organization Management, 48(2), 629–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011231160574
13.
BlutM.WangC.WünderlichN. V.BrockC. (2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: A meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(4), 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00762-y
BröhlC.NellesJ.BrandlC.MertensA.NitschV. (2019). Human–robot collaboration acceptance model: Development and comparison for Germany, Japan, China and the USA. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(5), 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00593-0
17.
BrownS. A.VenkateshV.GoyalS. (2014). Expectation confirmation in information systems research: A test of six competing models. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 729–756. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2014/38.3.05
18.
BrownS. A.VenkateshV.KuruzovichJ.MasseyA. P. (2008). Expectation confirmation: An examination of three competing models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.008
19.
BusseC.MahlendorfM. D.BodeC. (2016). The ABC for studying the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115579699
20.
CaoG.DuanY.EdwardsJ. S.DwivediY. K. (2021). Understanding managers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions towards using artificial intelligence for organizational decision-making. Technovation, 106(1), 102312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102312
21.
CastroB.RobertsM.MenaK.BoerkoelJ. (2017). Who takes the lead? Automated scheduling for human-robot teams. In AAAI fall symposium series on artificial intelligence for human-robot interaction.
22.
Chamorro-PremuzicT.AhmetogluG. (2016). The pros and cons of robot managers. Harvard Business Review.
23.
ChangW.KimK. (2022). Appropriate service robots in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Business Research, 141(1), 462–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.044
24.
CichorJ. E.Hubner-BenzS.BenzT.EmmerlingF.PeusC. (2023). Robot leadership-Investigating human perceptions and reactions towards social robots showing leadership behaviors. PLoS One, 18(2), e0281786. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281786
25.
ClaudyM. C.AquinoK.GrasoM. (2022). Artificial intelligence Can‘t Be charmed: The effects of impartiality on Laypeople‘s algorithmic preferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), 898027. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.898027
26.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates.
27.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
28.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
29.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
30.
DeChurchL. A.HillerN. J.MuraseT.DotyD.SalasE. (2010). Leadership across levels: Levels of leaders and their levels of impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1069–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.009
31.
Dell Technologies. (2018). Realizing 2030: A divided vision of the future. Dell Technologies.
32.
DengEricMutluBilgeMatarićMaja J. (2019). Embodiment in socially interactive robots. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics, 7(4), 251–356.
33.
DiederichS.BrendelA. B.MoranaS.KolbeL. (2022). On the design of and interaction with conversational agents: An organizing and assessing review of human-computer interaction research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(1), 96–138. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00724
34.
DietvorstB. J.SimmonsJ. P.MasseyC. (2018). Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Science, 64(3), 1155–1170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643
DurbinJ.WatsonG. S. (1951). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. II. Biometrika, 38(1-2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332325
37.
EdwardsJ. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 51–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1029
38.
EdwardsJ. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In DrasgowF.SchmittN. W. (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). Jossey-Bass.
39.
EdwardsJ. R.ParryM. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613. https://doi.org/10.5465/256822
40.
EsterwoodC.EssenmacherK.YangH.ZengF.RobertL. P. (2022). A personable robot: Meta-analysis of robot personality and human acceptance. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3), 6918–6925. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2022.3178795
41.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
42.
FazioR. H.ZannaM. P.CooperJ. (1978). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency: An information processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 48–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727800400109
FinnP.MysoreM.UsherO. (2020). When nothing is normal: Managing in extreme uncertainty. McKinsey & Company.
45.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. In Addison-Wesley series in social psychology. Addison-Wesley.
46.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
47.
GeiskkovitchD. Y.CormierD.SeoS. H.YoungJ. E. (2016). Please continue, we need more data: An exploration of obedience to robots. J. Hum.-Robot Interact, 5(1), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.5898/10.5898/jhri.5.1.geiskkovitch
48.
GittellJ. H.CameronK.LimS.RivasV. (2006). Relationships, layoffs, and organizational resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306286466
49.
GladdenM. E. (2014). The social robot as ‚charismatic leader’: A phenomenology of human submission to nonhuman power. In SeibtJ.HakliR.NørskovM. (Eds.), Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications: Vol. 273, sociable robots and the future of social relations: Proceedings of robo-philosophy 2014. IOS Press.
50.
GombolayM. C.GutierrezR. A.ClarkeS. G.SturlaG. F.ShahJ. A. (2015). Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams. Autonomous Robots, 39(3), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9457-9
51.
GreenB.ChenY. (2019). The principles and limits of algorithm-in-the-loop decision making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359152
52.
GriepY. (2022). Greetings from the new editor: Directions for group & organization management. Group & Organization Management, 47(6), 1095–1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221115980
53.
HeerinkM.KröseB.EversV.WielingaB. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5
54.
HessT. J.McNabA. L.BasogluK. A. (2014). Reliability generalization of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intentions. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.01
55.
HoffmanG.BreazealC. (2004). Collaboration in human-robot teams. In AIAA 1st intelligent systems technical conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
56.
HomP. W.GriffethR. W.PalichL. E.BrackerJ. S. (1999). Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb01815.x
57.
HomburgC.WiesekeJ.HoyerW. D. (2009). Social identity and the service-profit chain. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.2.38
58.
HorstmannA. C.KrämerN. C. (2019). Great expectations? Relation of previous experiences with social robots in real life or in the media and expectancies based on qualitative and quantitative assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1), 939. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00939
59.
HorstmannA. C.KrämerN. C. (2020). When a robot violates expectations. In BelpaemeT.YoungJ.GunesH.RiekL. (Eds.), Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 254–256). ACM.
60.
HumbergS.SchönbrodtF. D.BackM. D.NestlerS. (2020). Cubic response surface analysis: Investigating asymmetric and level-dependent congruence effects with third-order polynomial models. In Psychological methods. Advance online publication.
61.
HutlerB.RiederT. N.MathewsD. J. H.HandelmanD. A.GreenbergA. M. (2023). Designing robots that do no harm: Understanding the challenges of Ethics for Robots. AI and Ethics, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00283-8
62.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
63.
KniffinK. M.DetertJ. R.LeroyH. L. (2020). On leading and managing: Synonyms or separate (and unequal)?Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(4), 544–571. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0227
64.
KnofM.HeinischJ. S.KirchhoffJ.RawalN.DavidK.StrykO.Stock-HomburgR. M. (2022). Implications from responsible human-robot interaction with anthropomorphic service robots for design science. In BuiT. X. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 55th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences.
65.
KotterJ. P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103–111.
66.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations: Review update. In SchmittN. W.HighhouseS. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed. pp. 412–469). Wiley.
67.
KwonM.LiM.BucquetA.SadighD. (2019). Influencing leading and following in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of robotics: Science systems.
68.
LeeK. M.JungY.KimJ.KimS. R. (2006). Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents? The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human‐robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(10), 962–973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.002
69.
LeeM. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684
70.
LeiteI.MartinhoC.PaivaA. (2013). Social robots for long-term interaction: A survey. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(2), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y
71.
LezhninaO.KismihókG. (2020). A multi-method psychometric assessment of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1(1), 100004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100004
LopesS. L.Bernardo RochaJ.FerreiraA. I.PradaR. (2021). Social robots as leaders: Leadership styles in human-robot teams. In 2021 30th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication. (pp. 258–263). IEEE.
74.
MacDormanK. F.IshiguroH. (2005). Toward social mechanisms of android science: A CogSci 2005 workshop. Interaction Studies, 7(2), 289–296.
75.
MacDormanK. F.IshiguroH. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. International Studies, 7(3), 297–337. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.03mac
76.
McGrathJ. (2021). Report on labour shortages and surpluses: November 2021 (1st ed.). Publications Office of the European Union.
77.
MendeM.ScottM. L.van DoornJ.GrewalD.ShanksI. (2019). Service robots rising: How humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718822827
78.
MesseriC.ZanchettinA. M.RoccoP.GianottiE.ChiricoA.MagoniS.GaggioliA. (2023). On the effects of leader–follower roles in dyadic human–robot synchronization. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, 15(2), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2020.2991864
79.
Noormohammadi-AslA.AyubA.SmithS. L.DautenhahnK. (2022). Task selection and planning in human-robot collaborative processes: To be a leader or a follower? In 2022 31st IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (pp. 1244–1251). RO-MAN.
80.
NorthouseP. G. (2015). Leadership : Theory and practice.
81.
OliverR. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
82.
Oracle. (2019). From Fear to enthusiasm: Artificial Intelligence is winning more Hearts and Minds in the workplace (AI@work study 2019). Oracle.
83.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354
84.
PeerE.VosgerauJ.AcquistiA. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y
PorterL. W.SteersR. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034829
88.
Proposal for Regulation 2021/0106. (2021). Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence Act) and amending certain union legislative acts (COM (2021) 206 final). European Union.
89.
Reuters. (2023). Drinks company appoints AI robot as ‚experimental CEO.
90.
SamaniH. A.CheokA. D. (2011). From human-robot relationship to robot-based leadership. In 4th international conference on human system interactions.
91.
SamaniH. A.KohJ. T. K. V.SaadatianE.PolydorouD. (2012). Towards robotics leadership: An analysis of leadership characteristics and the roles robots will inherit in future human society. In PanJ.-S.ChenS.-M.NguyenN. T. (Eds.), Intelligent information and database systems: 4th Asian conference, ACIIDS 2012 (pp. 158–165). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
92.
SavelaN.TurjaT.OksanenA. (2018). Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(4), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0452-5
93.
SchmittB.ZarantonelloL. (2013). Consumer experience and experiential marketing: A critical review. In NareshK. M. (Ed.), Review of Marketing Research (10, pp. 25–61). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/s1548-6435(2013)0000010006
94.
SeboS.StollB.ScassellatiB.JungM. F. (2020). Robots in groups and teams: A literature review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415247
95.
SimonetD. V.TettR. P. (2013). Five perspectives on the leadership–management relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812467205
SonnentagS.FreseM. (2002). Performance concepts and performance theory. In SonnentagS. (Ed.), Psychological management of individual performance (pp. 1–25). Wiley.
98.
StaffordR. Q.MacDonaldB. A.JayawardenaC.WegnerD. M.BroadbentE. (2014). Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0186-y
99.
Stock-HomburgR. (2022). Survey of emotions in human–robot interactions: Perspectives from robotic psychology on 20 Years of research. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14(2), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00778-6
100.
Stock-HomburgR.NguyenM. A. (2023). See No evil, hear No evil: How users blindly overrely on robots with automation bias. In ICIS 2023 proceedings.
101.
Stock-HomburgR. M.KirchhoffJ.HeinischJ. S.EbertA.BuschP.RawalN.DavidK.WendtJ.DöhmannI.StrykO.HannigM.KnofM. (2022). Responsible human-robot interaction with anthropomorphic service robots: State of the art of an interdisciplinary research challenge. In BuiT. X. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 55th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences.
102.
ten BrummelhuisL. L.OosterwaalA.BakkerA. B. (2012). Managing family demands in teams. Group & Organization Management, 37(3), 376–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111435410
103.
ThomasJ.MengelT. (2008). Preparing project managers to deal with complexity – advanced project management education. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.01.001
104.
TurjaT.OksanenA. (2019). Robot acceptance at work: A multilevel analysis based on 27 EU countries. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(4), 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00526-x
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023b). Job Openings and labor turnover - may 2023 [press release]. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm
107.
VanceA.JenkinsJ. L.AndersonB. B.BjornnD. K.KirwanC. B. (2018). Tuning out security warnings: A longitudinal examination of habituation through fMRI, eye tracking, and field experiments. MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2018/14124
108.
VenkateshV.GoyalS. (2010). Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: Polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721428
109.
WangN.PynadathD. V.HillS. G. (2016). Trust calibration within a human-robot team: Comparing automatically generated explanations. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE.
110.
WolfF. D.Stock-HomburgR. M. (2022). How and when can robots Be team members? Three decades of research on human–robot teams. Group & Organization Management, 48(6), 1666–1744. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221076636
111.
World Economic Forum. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020.
112.
WuX.LiS.GuoY.FangS. (2024). Human or AI robot? Who is fairer on the service organizational frontline. Journal of Business Research, 181(2), 114730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114730
113.
YamK. C.GohE.-Y.FehrR.LeeR.SohH.GrayK. (2022). When your boss is a robot: Workers are more spiteful to robot supervisors that seem more human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102(2), 104360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104360
114.
YouS.RobertL. P. (2022). Subgroup formation in human-robot teams: A multi‐study mixed‐method approach with implications for theory and practice. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(2), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24626
115.
YouS.RobertL. P.,Jr. (2018). Emotional attachment, performance, and viability in teams collaborating with embodied physical action (EPA) robots. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(5), 377–407. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00496
116.
YoungJ.CormierD. (2014). Can robots Be managers, too?Harvard Business Review.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
