{"id":655,"date":"2021-03-15T11:48:11","date_gmt":"2021-03-15T09:48:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/?p=655"},"modified":"2021-03-16T11:21:40","modified_gmt":"2021-03-16T09:21:40","slug":"cers-research-seminar-with-magnus-soderlund-student-perspectives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/2021\/03\/15\/cers-research-seminar-with-magnus-soderlund-student-perspectives\/","title":{"rendered":"CERS Research Seminar with Magnus S\u00f6derlund: Student Perspectives"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The human-to-robot service encounter (and robot-to-robot encounters)  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Tuesday, the 2nd<\/sup> of March 2021, Magnus\nS\u00f6derlund, Senior CERS Fellow, and Professor at Stockholm School of Economics\nheld a seminar on recent empirical findings in human-to-robot and robot-to-robot\ninteraction in the service sector. During this seminar, S\u00f6derlund talked about\nhow such research can be conducted, some of the results from recent studies,\nand his view of the publishing opportunities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Photo: Unsplash<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

As Master\u2019s Marketing students, we were incredibly excited\nto attend this research seminar. This blog will provide a description of the\nseminar as well as our individual perspectives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interaction with robots in the service sector<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Robots are already making appearances in different service\nindustries. For instance, a robot helping customers in supermarkets in Sweden\nand service robots in the Seoul Airport. However, according to Professor\nS\u00f6derlund, these instances appear to be more promotional stunts than integrated\nservice experiences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor S\u00f6derlund owns three robots with a range of\nfunctions. Currently under COVID-19 restrictions, Professor S\u00f6derlund has been\ngetting creative with his experimental methods. Using his own robots and himself\nas actor, he\u2019s been creating videos for the purpose of measuring viewer\nimpressions on varying dimensions of robot interactions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

His video experiments are guided by theories of anthropomorphism\nand are designed to gauge viewer participants\u2019 judgements of privacy\nviolations, perceived service effort, and service politeness. Theories of\nanthropomorphism explore the imbuing of non-humans with human-like\ncharacteristics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Distinct from S\u00f6derlund\u2019s previous work on virtual agents, service robots will move within physical environments in which there are humans while collecting, storing, processing, interpreting\u2014and possibly sharing\u2014data about humans. To S\u00f6derlund, movement is necessary feature in service robots. <\/strong> <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Professor S\u00f6derlund gave seminar attendees a preview of the\npreliminary results of his studies. Each examines different scenarios in which\nparticipants watch videos and give their immediate impressions. Here is a recap\nof the studies and their research implications: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study 1 (Privacy Violation)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this video, participants are introduced to a robot who\nrecords everything around it. One employee (played by S\u00f6derlund) is anxiously\nawaiting feedback from his manager on a project. The robot, who can access and\nshare information it has recorded, is asked by the employee to reveal the\nfeedback the robot overheard from the manager. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to viewing participants\u2019 reactions, the robot was\nevaluated as a human, based on whether he violated the manager\u2019s privacy. Even\nwhen the robot revealed positive feedback\u2014it was still considered to violate\nthe manager\u2019s privacy.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications: <\/em>Anthropomorphism is clearly\ndemonstrated here in ethical judgements on violations of privacy. The scenario\nindicates that robots in the workplace will be held accountable to the same moral\nstandards as humans. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study 2 (Privacy Violation) <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a twist on study 1, participants were shown scenarios comparing\na human counsellor and a robot counsellor. After an employee had privately\nconfided to the counsellor, a manager asks for the counsellor (human or robot) to\nreveal confidential information about the employee. As in study 1, the robot\u2019s\nviolation of the employee\u2019s privacy is perceived the same as if a human did\nit.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications: <\/em>Again, the robot\u2019s behaviour is held to\nhuman schemes of moral judgement. In the case of violating privacy,\nparticipants notably placed human-based ethical concerns on the robot. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study 3 (Perceived Effort) <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to previous research, employees seen doing\neffortful activities are perceived as providing better service. S\u00f6derlund was\ninterested in whether this phenomenon also applied to robots. When viewing a\nrobot struggling to complete a task, the robot was NOT viewed as providing\n\u201cbetter service\u201d when it struggled more, unlike humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications: <\/em>While high-effort human activity is\nusually perceived as contributing to better service, the opposite is true for\nrobots. This suggests that for humans to perceive service robots as performing\nhigh-quality service, the activity must appear easy. Perhaps this expectation\nof perfection from robots will limit the adoption of service robots until they\nare sufficiently capable to make it \u201clook easy\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Study 4 (Robot-to-Robot interactions) <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

S\u00f6derlund showed participants a video of a little robot\ninstructed to go the kitchen and complete a task. However, when it gets there,\nit must first interact with the \u201ckitchen robot\u201d who has authority over the\nwhole kitchen. Two scenarios played out: one in which the kitchen robot was\npolite to its subordinate, and one in which it was rude. Not only did\nparticipants agree that between the two videos the robots differed in their\nlevel of politeness, but also judged the rude robot as providing poor service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications: <\/em>Like S\u00f6derlund\u2019s research on the perception of the happiness of virtual agents, future service robots will be interpreted based on their behaviour as though they were human. This will carry over into the judgement of their service politeness, even when serving another robot. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Professor S\u00f6derlund, service robots will be most\nlikely start out as information storing devices or simple communication\nmachines. However, their possibilities include processing and interpreting data\nas well. While many human jobs are not at risk, robotics and technology\nthreaten jobs in the same way that farming equipment replaced animals. His\ncurrent studies lead him to conclude, \u201cwe evaluate robots similarly to how we evaluate\nhumans in similar situations\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concluding the seminar were some final thoughts from\nparticipants. Professor Mahr pondered potential \u201crage against the robot\u201d in\ndiscussing frustrated behaviour towards service robots. Professor Ciuchita commented,\n\u201clet\u2019s make them smart, but not too smart\u201d in reference to claims that\nSpotify\u2019s shuffle feature appeared not random enough to many users. In\nconclusion, Professor S\u00f6derlund urged interested researchers to contribute to\nfuture service robot research. Currently, S\u00f6derlund is exploring the publishing\nlandscape and looking for publishing opportunities in service or robotics\njournals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Student perspectives<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Karolina Jensen (Master\u2019s Students at Hanken, Project Assistant at CERS):<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe opportunity to attend Magnus S\u00f6derlund\u2019s seminar was a\nchance to experience the world of research in action. I found the research\nitself, and the results of the empirical studies conducted by Professor\nS\u00f6derlund thought provoking and inspiring. How far can we go with robot \u2013 human\ninteraction in the service sector? And where will we be in 5- or 10-years’\ntime? I think being in the midst of an ongoing conversation on current research\nis incredibly motivating for a student, makes you want to learn more and maybe\neven find out for yourself.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Erkki Paunonen (Master\u2019s Students at Hanken, Project Assistant at CERS):<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis seminar provided a new perspective to research methodology\nduring COVID-19 related distancing. Professor S\u00f6derlund introduced his\nmethodological choices for these studies by jokingly referring to the \u2018what\nwould you do\u2019 scenarios that researchers often describe to participants. If you\ncan simply show them that scenario rather than describe it, why not? Using his\nown robots and self as actor, the methodology really struck me as a clever\nadaptation to remote research. Finally, as a student, it can often feel like\nacademic articles are finished works that descend from the skies. It\u2019s nice to\nhear about works in progress and realize that a lot of the research process is\nabout doing, not just analysing.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Karolina Jensen and Erkki Paunonen<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Master\u2019s Student at Hanken, Project Assistants at CERS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The human-to-robot service encounter (and robot-to-robot encounters)  On Tuesday, the 2nd of March 2021, Magnus S\u00f6derlund, Senior CERS Fellow, and Professor at Stockholm School of Economics held a seminar on recent empirical findings in human-to-robot and robot-to-robot interaction in the service sector. During this seminar, S\u00f6derlund talked about how such research can be conducted, some …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[29,84,85,39],"class_list":["post-655","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cers-blog","tag-research","tag-robots","tag-seminar","tag-service"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/655","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=655"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/655\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":659,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/655\/revisions\/659"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.hanken.fi\/cers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}