IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v83y2025ics0160791x25002167.html

Do restaurant customers and owners differ in their preferences for serving robots? A choice experiment and latent class approach

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Changeun
  • Moon, HyungBin
  • Shin, Jungwoo

Abstract

Serving robots are increasingly being adopted by restaurants to address labor shortages and improve operational efficiency. These robots offer a range of benefits to restaurant owners, including increased productivity and a novel customer experience. However, there are barriers to adopting these technologies, including the digital literacy gap, emotional resistance, and social concerns regarding the impact of automation. Nevertheless, most existing research has focused on customer acceptance of serving robots, overlooking the perspectives of restaurant owners, who are the actual decision makers driving their adoption. This study addresses this gap by analyzing the heterogeneous preferences of customers and restaurant owners regarding serving robot types. Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and latent class analysis (LCA), this study identified two segments in each group. Customers were technology-progressive (43.6 %) or technology-conservative (56.4 %); owners were interaction-oriented (60.3 %) or appearance-oriented (39.7 %). The results showed that customers generally prefer non-humanoid robots, whereas owners favor fixed-type or humanoid robots. Notably, customers were the least likely to accept humanoid robots, indicating a potential “uncanny valley” effect. These divergent preferences suggest that successfully introducing serving robots to restaurants requires a strategic alignment between customer experience and owner priorities. By comparing these two stakeholder groups, this study provides practical insights for restaurant owners and robot manufacturers seeking to facilitate the effective introduction of serving robots in customer-facing environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Changeun & Moon, HyungBin & Shin, Jungwoo, 2025. "Do restaurant customers and owners differ in their preferences for serving robots? A choice experiment and latent class approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:83:y:2025:i:c:s0160791x25002167
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25002167
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103026?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kyung Hwa Seo & Jee Hye Lee, 2021. "The Emergence of Service Robots at Restaurants: Integrating Trust, Perceived Risk, and Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Shin, Jungwoo & Woo, JongRoul & Huh, Sung-Yoon & Lee, Jongsu & Jeong, Gicheol, 2014. "Analyzing public preferences and increasing acceptability for the Renewable Portfolio Standard in Korea," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 17-26.
    3. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    4. Liao, Jiancai & Huang, Jingya, 2024. "Think like a robot: How interactions with humanoid service robots affect consumers’ decision strategies," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    5. Schaak, Henning & Musshoff, Oliver, 2020. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes in Germany—A latent class analysis of a nationwide discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    7. Seyitoğlu, Faruk & Ivanov, Stanislav & Atsız, Ozan & Çifçi, İbrahim, 2021. "Robots as restaurant employees - A double-barrelled detective story," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    8. Lim, Xin-Jean & Chang, Jennifer Yee-Shan & Cheah, Jun-Hwa & Lim, Weng Marc & Kraus, Sascha & Dabić, Marina, 2024. "Out of the way, human! Understanding post-adoption of last-mile delivery robots," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    9. Marc Becker & Dominik Mahr & Gaby Odekerken-Schröder, 2023. "Customer comfort during service robot interactions," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 17(1), pages 137-165, March.
    10. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    11. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. Daniele Pacifico & Hong il Yoo, 2013. "lclogit: A Stata command for fitting latent-class conditional logit models via the expectation-maximization algorithm," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 13(3), pages 625-639, September.
    13. Wang, Yawei & Kang, Qi & Zhou, Shoujiang & Dong, Yuanyuan & Liu, Junqi, 2022. "The impact of service robots in retail: Exploring the effect of novelty priming on consumer behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    14. Yang, YeHa & Yang, SoYoung & Moon, HyungBin & Woo, JongRoul, 2024. "Analyzing heterogeneous electric vehicle charging preferences for strategic time-of-use tariff design and infrastructure development: A latent class approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 374(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yun, Sujin & Woo, JongRoul & Kwak, Kyuil, 2025. "Unlocking peak shaving: How EV driver heterogeneity shapes V2G potential," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 329(C).
    2. Yang, YeHa & Yang, SoYoung & Moon, HyungBin & Woo, JongRoul, 2024. "Analyzing heterogeneous electric vehicle charging preferences for strategic time-of-use tariff design and infrastructure development: A latent class approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 374(C).
    3. Shehawy, Yasser Moustafa & Faisal Ali Khan, Syed Md & Ali M Khalufi, Nasser & Abdullah, Riyaz Sheikh, 2025. "Customer adoption of robot: Synergizing customer acceptance of robot-assisted retail technologies," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Lim, Weng Marc & Jasim, K. Mohamed & Malathi, A., 2025. "Service robots in healthcare: Toward a healthcare service robot acceptance model (sRAM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    6. Lee, Misuk & Choi, Hyunhong & Koo, Yoonmo, 2017. "Inconvenience cost of waste disposal behavior in South Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 58-65.
    7. Sung-Yoon Huh & Chul-Yong Lee, 2017. "A Demand-Side Perspective on Developing a Future Electricity Generation Mix: Identifying Heterogeneity in Social Preferences," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
    8. Gutsche, Gunnar & Ziegler, Andreas, 2019. "Which private investors are willing to pay for sustainable investments? Empirical evidence from stated choice experiments," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 193-214.
    9. Paolo Liberati & Francesco Crespi & Massimo Paradiso & Simone Tedeschi & Antonio Scialà, 2018. "Smokers Are Different: The Heterogeneity Of Smokers’ Responses To Price Increases," Departmental Working Papers of Economics - University 'Roma Tre' 0237, Department of Economics - University Roma Tre.
    10. Gunnar Gutsche & Andreas Ziegler, 2016. "Are private investors willing to pay for sustainable investments? A stated choice experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201640, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    11. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    12. Crespi, Francesco & Liberati, Paolo & Paradiso, Massimo & Scialà, Antonio & Tedeschi, Simone, 2021. "Smokers are different: The impact of price increases on smoking reduction and downtrading," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 326-334.
    13. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Miet Maertens, 2020. "Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 798-815, September.
    14. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    15. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    16. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    17. Domenico Piccolo & Rosaria Simone, 2019. "The class of cub models: statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(3), pages 389-435, September.
    18. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Wang, Wei-Chung & Fu, Chiang, 2012. "Latent class nested logit model for analyzing high-speed rail access mode choice," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 545-554.
    19. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    20. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:teinso:v:83:y:2025:i:c:s0160791x25002167. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    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.