IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v181y2024ics0148296324002340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Human or AI robot? Who is fairer on the service organizational frontline

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, Xiaolong
  • Li, Shuhua
  • Guo, Yonglin
  • Fang, Shujie

Abstract

Research has focused on exploring the distinction between human employees and AI robots. However, little is known about customer perceptions of service fairness towards AI robots (vs. human employees). A mixed-methods approach was adopted including a qualitative study which aimed to generate an understanding of customer fairness perception towards AI robots (vs. human employees). The quantitative study examined this difference, the boundary conditions, and the downstream effect on customer responses. The results indicated that customers perceive robotic services as fairer than human employees, especially in relation to distributive and procedural fairness. This effect was stronger for customers with low power distance belief. Differences in fairness perceptions can also impact on customer revisit intention, recommendation intention, satisfaction, and subjective well-being. The study extends an understanding of customer attitudes towards AI robots by considering the machine heuristic model and fairness theory, and provides insights for managers to properly utilize AI robots to enhance service fairness on the service industry frontline.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu, Xiaolong & Li, Shuhua & Guo, Yonglin & Fang, Shujie, 2024. "Human or AI robot? Who is fairer on the service organizational frontline," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:181:y:2024:i:c:s0148296324002340
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296324002340
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114730?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:181:y:2024:i:c:s0148296324002340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.