Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of Service Robot Integration Willingness (SRIW) Scale in the Chinese Sample of Adults

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The willingness to use service robots plays a pivotal role in human–robot interaction. To establish a valid measure in the Chinese context, this study aimed to revisit the validity and reliability of the Service Robot Integration Willingness (SRIW) Scale among Chinese adults. A total of 955 participants were recruited to complete the Chinese version of the SRIW. Our findings revealed a four-factor model comprising 31 items, indicating a strong model fit. Furthermore, trust in automation correlated positively with the Chinese SRIW, while negative attitudes toward robots exhibited a significant inverse correlation, supportting the Chinese SRIW’s substantial criterion-related validity. In conclusion, this article introduces an updated Chinese SRIW, underscoring its efficacy in measuring the readiness to adopt service robots in China.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Appel M, Izydorczyk D, Weber S, Mara M, Lischetzke T (2020) The uncanny of mind in a machine: humanoid robots as tools, agents, and experiencers. Comput Hum Behav 102:274–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Babamiri M, Heidarimoghadam R, Ghasemi F, Tapak L, Mortezapour A (2022) Insights into the relationship between usability and willingness to use a robot in the future workplaces: studying the mediating role of trust and the moderating roles of age and STARA. PLoS ONE 17:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Belanche D, Casaló LV, Flavián C, Schepers J (2020) Service robot implementation: a theoretical framework and research agenda. Serv Ind J 40(3–4):203–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1672666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borland J, Coelli M (2017) Are robots taking our jobs? Australian Econom Rev 50(4):377–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown SA, Venkatesh V (2005) Model of adoption of technology in households: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Q: Manage Inf Syst 29(3):399–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cai J, Sun Q, Mu Z, Sun X (2022) Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the trust between People and Automation Scale (TPAS) in Chinese adults. Reflexão e Crítica, Psicologia. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-022-00219-x

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang C, Shao B, Li Y, Zhang Y (2022) Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to accept service robots: based on online reviews of Chinese hotels. Front Psychol 13:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cheng H, Jia R, Li D, Li H (2019) The rise of robots in China. J Econom Perspect 33(2):71–88. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chi OH, Denton G, Gursoy D (2020) Artificially intelligent device use in service delivery: a systematic review, synthesis, and research agenda. J Hosp Market Manag 29(7):757–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2020.1721394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Childers TL, Carr CL, Peck J, Carson S (2001) Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. J Retail 77(4):511–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00056-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chuah SHW, Yu J (2021) The future of service: the power of emotion in human-robot interaction. J Retail Consum Serv 61:102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. De Visser EJ, Monfort SS, Goodyear K, Lu L, O’Hara M, Lee MR, Krueger F (2017) A little anthropomorphism goes a long way: effects of oxytocin on trust, compliance, and team performance with automated agents. Hum Factors 59(1):116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816687205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Visser EJ, Peeters MMM, Jung MF, Kohn S, Shaw TH, Pak R, Neerincx MA (2020) Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human-robot teams. Int J Soc Robot 12(2):459–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00596-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Drnec K, Marathe AR, Lukos JR, Metcalfe JS (2016) From trust in automation to decision neuroscience: applying cognitive neuroscience methods to understand and improve interaction decisions involved in human automation interaction. Front Hum Neurosci 10:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Duffy RD, Allan BA, England JW, Blustein DL, Autin KL, Douglass RP, Santos EJR (2017) The development and initial validation of the decent work scale. J Couns Psychol 64(2):206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dzindolet MT, Peterson SA, Pomranky RA, Pierce LG, Beck HP (2003) The role of trust in automation reliance. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58(6):697–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frantz R (2003) Herbert Simon, Artificial intelligence as a framework for understanding intuition. J Econom Psychol 24(2):265–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00207-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gonzalez-Aguirre JA, Osorio-Oliveros R, Rodríguez-Hernández KL, Lizárraga-Iturralde J, Menendez RM, Ramírez-Mendoza RA, de Lozoya-Santos J, J. (2021) Service robots: trends and technology. Appl Sci (Switzerland) 11(22):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gursoy D, Chi OH, Lu L, Nunkoo R (2019) Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. Int J Inf Manage 49:157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Florida C, Chen JYC, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R (2011) A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum Factors 53(5):517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V (2004) Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods 7(2):191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hinton PR., McMurray I, Brownlow C (2014). SPSS explained. Routledge (Routledge). London,England: Routledge

  25. Hlee S, Park J, Park H, Koo C, Chang Y (2022) Understanding customer’s meaningful engagement with AI-powered service robots. Inf Technol People. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2020-0740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hu Q, Pan X, Luo J, Yu Y (2022) The effect of service robot occupational gender stereotypes on customers’ willingness to use them. Front Psychol 13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.985501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Huang MH, Rust RT (2018) Artificial intelligence in service. J Serv Res 21(2):155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517752459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hussein A, Elsawah S, Abbass HA (2020) Trust mediating reliability-reliance relationship in supervisory control of human-swarm interactions. Hum Factors 62(8):1237–1248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819879273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ismatullaev UVU, Kim SH (2022). Review of the Factors Affecting Acceptance of AI-Infused Systems, Human Factors: J Human Factors Ergonom Soc, https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211064707

  30. Ivanov S, Webster C (2021) Willingness-to-pay for robot-delivered tourism and hospitality services – an exploratory study. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 33(11):3926–3955. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2020-1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Javaid M, Haleem A (2020) Critical components of industry 5.0 towards a successful adoption in the field of manufacturing. J Indust Int Manage 5(3):327–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jian J-Y, Bisantz AM, Drury CG (2000) Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. Int J Cogn Ergon 4(1):53–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327566ijce0401_04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Karabegović I, Doleček V (2017) The role of service robots and robotic systems in the treatment of patients in medical institutions. Lect Notes Netw Syst 3:9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47295-9_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kelley TL (1939) The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. J Educ Psychol 30(1):17–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kieslich K, Lünich M, Marcinkowski F (2021) The threats of artificial intelligence scale (TAI): development, measurement and test over three application domains. Int J Soc Robot 13(7):1563–1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00734-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim YW, Lim C, Ji YG (2022) Exploring the user acceptance of urban air mobility: extending the technology acceptance model with trust and service quality factors. Int J Human-Comput Int. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2087662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kimmig R, Verheijen RHM, Rudnicki M (2020) Robot assisted surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for gynecological cancer: a statement of the society of european robotic gynaecological surgery (SERGS). J Gynecol Oncol 31(3):1–7. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Körtner T (2016) Ethical challenges in the use of social service robots for elderly people. Z Gerontol Geriatr 49(4):303–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1066-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee I (2021) Service robots: a systematic literature review. Electronics 10:2658. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10212658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lu L, Cai R, Gursoy D (2019) Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale. Int J Hosp Manag 80:36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mende M, Scott ML, van Doorn J, Grewal D, Shanks I (2019) Service robots rising: how humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory consumer responses. J Mark Res 56(4):535–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718822827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Morris MW, Peng K (1994) Culture and cause : american and chinese attributions for social and physical events psychological approaches to explaining causal attribution. J Pers Soc Psychol 67(6):949–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nomura T, Kanda T, Yamada S, Suzuki T (2011). Exploring influences of robot anxiety into HRI. In: HRI 2011 Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 213–214. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957737

  44. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots interaction studies. Social Behav Commun Biol Artif Syst 7(3):437–454

    Google Scholar 

  45. NunnallyJC, Bernstein IH (1994). Psychometric Theory(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  46. Paliga M, Pollak A (2021) Development and validation of the fluency in human-robot interaction scale. a two-wave study on three perspectives of fluency. Int J Human Comput Stud 155:102698–102798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Peng K, Nisbett RE (1999) Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. Am Psychol 54(9):741–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pillai R, Sivathanu B (2020) Adoption of AI-based chatbots for hospitality and tourism. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 32(10):3199–3226. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2020-0259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rahwan I, Cebrian M, Obradovich N, Bongard J, Bonnefon JF, Breazeal C, Wellman M (2019) Machine behaviour. Nature 568(7753):477–486. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Regmi K, Naidoo J, Pilkington P (2010) Understanding the processes of translation and transliteration in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 9(1):16–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691000900103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Robichaud-Ekstrand S, Haccoun RR, Millette D (1994) A method for validating a translated questionnaire. Canadian J Nurs Res 26(3):77–87

    Google Scholar 

  52. Roseman IJ (2008) Motivations and emotivations: Approach, avoidance, and other tendencies in motivated and emotional behavior. In: Elliot AJ (ed) Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. Psychology Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shank DB, Graves C, Gott A, Gamez P, Rodriguez S (2019) Feeling our way to machine minds: People’s emotions when perceiving mind in artificial intelligence. Comput Hum Behav 98:256–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Smith ER, Sherrin S, Fraune MR, Šabanović S (2020) Positive emotions, more than anxiety or other negative emotions, predict willingness to interact with robots. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 46(8):1270–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219900439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q: Manage Inf Syst 27(3):425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q: Manage Inf Syst 36(1):157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wirtz J, Patterson PG, Kunz WH, Gruber T, Lu VN, Paluch S, Martins A (2018) Brave new world: service robots in the frontline. J Serv Manag 29(5):907–931. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2018-0119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wolbring G, Yumakulov S (2014) Social robots: views of staff of a disability service organization. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0229-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Yoon SN, Lee DH (2019) Artificial intelligence and robots in healthcare: What are the success factors for technology-based service encounters? Int J Healthcare Manage 12(3):218–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/20479700.2018.1498220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Yu CE, Ngan HFB (2019) The power of head tilts: gender and cultural differences of perceived human vs human-like robot smile in service. Tour Rev 74(3):428–442. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-07-2018-0097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Zhang T, Tao D, Qu X, Zhang X, Lin R, Zhang W (2019) The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles. Transport Res Part C: Emerg Technol 98:207–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Złotowski J, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2017) Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. Int J Hum Comput Stud 100:48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.12.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Science Foundation of Zhejiang Sci-Tech University (ZSTU), (21062112-Y), Jie Cai

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China

    Jie Cai & Xudong Lu

  2. 928 2nd Street, Qiantang District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China

    Jie Cai

  3. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Xiangyun Tang

  4. Mental Health Research Institute, Nanjing Xiaozhuang University, Nanjing, China

    Xurong Fu

Authors
  1. Jie Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiangyun Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xudong Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xurong Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jie Cai.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cai, J., Tang, X., Lu, X. et al. Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of Service Robot Integration Willingness (SRIW) Scale in the Chinese Sample of Adults. Int J of Soc Robotics 16, 245–256 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01075-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01075-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation