AI Contactless Customer Service

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20
Examining the effects of AI contactless services on

customer psychological safety, perceived value,
and hospitality service quality during the COVID‐19
pandemic
Minglong Li, Dexiang Yin, Hailian Qiu & Billy Bai
To cite this article: Minglong Li, Dexiang Yin, Hailian Qiu & Billy Bai (2021): Examining the effects
of AI contactless services on customer psychological safety, perceived value, and hospitality
service quality during the COVID‐19 pandemic, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,
DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2021.1934932
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2021.1934932
Published online: 09 Jun 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 861
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whmm20
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2021.1934932
Examining the effects of AI contactless services on customer

psychological safety, perceived value, and hospitality service
quality during the COVID-19 pandemic
a
Minglong Li , Dexiang Yina, Hailian Qiub, and Billy Baic
a
School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, P.R. China; bBusiness
School, Hubei University, Wuhan, P.R. China; cWilliam F. Harrah College of Hospitality, University of Nevada Las
Vegas (UNLV), Las Vegas, USA
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Artificial intelligence (AI) contactless services thrived during the Artificial intelligence (AI);
COVID-19 pandemic, while their consequences remained unclear. contactless services;
Based on media equation theory and means-end chain theory, this psychological safety;
perceived control; hedonic
study proposed a model explaining the effect of AI contactless services
value; hospitality service
on customers’ psychological safety, perceived control, hedonic value, quality
and service quality. Data were collected from hotel customers with an
online panel survey and a site survey in Wuhan, China. Chi-square
statistics indicated that there were no significant differences between
the two datasets. A structural equation modeling analysis of the
combined data (n=316) suggested that two dimensions of AI contact
less services led to the examined customers’ psychological safety,
which in turn positively influenced their hedonic value and service
quality but negatively affected their perceived control. Additionally,
customer psychological safety was found to mediate certain relation
ships between contactless service attributes and perceived value. The
research findings contribute to AI service applications and influence
theoretically and practically.
人工智能 (Al) 非接触式服务在COVID-19大流行期间蓬勃发展, 但其后

果尚不清楚. 基于媒介方程理论和手段-目的链理论, ;本研究提出了一
个模型来解释人工智能非接触服务对顾客心理安全、感知控制、享
乐价值和服务质量的影响. 数据是通过在线小组调查和中国武汉的
现场调查从酒店顾客那里收集的. 卡方检验表明两组数据之间无显
著性差异. 对组合数据(n=316)的结构方程模型分析表明, 人工智能非
接触式服务的两个维度导致了被调查顾客的心理安全, 这反过来对
他们的享乐价值和服务质量产生积极影响, 但对他们的感知控制产
生消极影响. 此外, 顾客心理安全在非接触式服务属性与知觉价值之
间具有中介作用. 本文的研究成果对人工智能服务的应用具有重要
的理论和实践意义.
Introduction
The increase in applications of contactless services during the COVID-19 pandemic has
aroused great concern about the quality of hospitality services. Because of the COVID-19
crisis, the principles of “safety first” and “reduced contact” have become common demands
CONTACT Minglong Li minglong.li@connect.polyu.hk School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of

Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, P.R. China
© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 M. LI ET AL.
related to service provisions (Yıldırım & Güler, 2021). Thus, many practical managers have
adopted artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to perform certain customer contact tasks
that were previously completed by human staff, giving rise to AI contactless services
(Tussyadiah, 2020). AI contactless services refer to adoptions of AI intended to provide
face-to-face services in a seamless, intelligent and adaptive manner, and these services are
sustained in the background by the related service organization and its employees, with no
direct contact between customers and employees (Lee & Lee, 2021). For example, Alibaba
Group has launched intelligent and contactless services in many hotels, where customers
can interact with AI equipment to receive flexible and accurate services, such as self-check-
ins, customized catering, and innovative experiences (Kim & Han, 2020). However, can AI
contactless services truly provide the safety that customers require during the pandemic,
and can customers expect these hospitality services to be of high quality? This key question
remains unresolved.
The first step to answering this question is to understand the attributes of AI contactless
services. Traditionally, adopting technologies to provide or deliver services may result in
decreased levels of customer trust (Park, 2020). In contrast, AI technologies could alleviate
this negative effect by evoking psychological identity through social cognition (Čaić et al.,
2019). For example, AI services enjoy the advantages of sensory properties, and can thus
create customer perceptions of another social entity (Kervenoael et al., 2020; Samala et al.,
2019). Customers perceive the sensory properties of AI in such a way that they trust the
related hospitality enterprises and assess the related service value accordingly (Čaić et al.,
2019; Wirtz et al., 2018). Interactivity and responsiveness, another two attributes of AI
contactless services, can shorten the distance to customer needs in a service encounter with
few humans, leading to a high level of service quality (Ghantous, 2015; Morita et al., 2019).
By providing a continuously connected channel and engaging consumers in value cocrea
tion, high levels of interactivity and responsiveness of AI could maintain customers’
hospitality perceptions and meet their safety and social needs (Buhalis & Sinarta, 2019).
The psychology safety of customers is critical, especially considering the shattered worlds
and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) of people who were affected by COVID-19
(Cheung & Mohammed, 2019; Sayegh et al., 2004), as a low level of psychological safety
has been found to hinder service consumptions (Ahmed et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021). The
extant research on psychological safety tends to focus on customers’ perceived threats to the
environment (Kim et al., 2021; Yıldırım & Güler, 2021); on functional safety of technology,
such as privacy safety (Ha & Pan, 2017); or performance, process, and purpose constructs
(Park, 2020). However, little is known about consumer psychology safety against the back
ground of public health emergencies and AI contactless services. Psychological safety is
a key source of value, especially in the context of risk (Schwartz, 2012). As an influential
means to address the risks caused by COVID-19, AI technologies may act as a social barrier
that not only improves psychological safety during the pandemic (Ivanov & Webster, 2019;
Jiang & Wen, 2020) but also stimulates service value cocreation, influencing the value of
perceived control and hedonism of customers (Turner et al., 2020). Even so, little research
has empirically examined the impact of the attributes of AI contactless service on psycho
logical safety, value and quality, especially in the context of public health crises. This study
attempts to bridge this gap.
Therefore, this study aims to examine the influence mechanism of AI contactless services
on hospitality service quality through the channels of customers’ psychological safety and
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 3
Table 1. A literature review matrix of AI services and AI contactless services.

Service Customer
Concept encounter Roles Examples outcomes Literature
AI services Customer- Facilitating; Intelligent Enjoyment; Tussyadiah et al., 2018;
Employee; Augmenting recommendations; visitation Prentice et al., 2020; Wirtz
Customer- the ternary intention; et al., 2018; Belanche et al.,
Customer interactions of satisfaction 2020; Tung & Law, 2017;
people and robots and loyalty; Prentice & Nguyen, 2020;
acceptance Chi et al., 2020
AI contactless AI-employee; Substituting; Production/delivery Cognitive and Kelly et al., 2017; Ahn & Seo,
services AI- Intermediary robots; self-driving affective 2018; Choi et al., 2019;
customer cars, self-service states; Ivanov & Webster, 2019;
check-in machines, behavioral Tung & Au, 2018; Gursoy
smart telephone intentions; et al., 2019
customer service; acceptance;
smart home service
quality
perceived value. First, the attributes of AI contactless services are discussed as the basis of
this influence mechanism. Second, the present research investigates the impact of AI
contactless services on the psychological safety and perceived value of customers and
whether psychological safety plays a mediating role in these relationships against the
background of the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the effects of certain perceived values
on service quality are estimated. By doing so, we extend the means-end chain framework to
the new context of AI contactless services and prompt the research on the influences of AI
application in the hospitality industry.
Literature review and hypothesis formulation

AI services and their consequences
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have been increasingly applied in the hospitality
industry and have reshaped services for customers. These applications may vary due to
influencing factors such as robot design, customer characteristics and service environment
elements (Belanche et al., 2020). According to Chi et al. (2020), AI agents in the context of
hospitality services can be categorized into the following four types: intelligent devices, self-
service technologies, chatbots and service robots. Different types of AI-assisted service
interactions may have different impacts on customer experiences (Keyser et al., 2019).
When customers began to be served directly and independently by AI with employees in
the background, AI contactless services emerged. AI contactless services differ from tradi
tional services in many ways (Table 1). Through AI contactless services, customers can
choose their destinations accurately using intelligent virtual reality (VR), check into hotels
independently with the help of smart systems, follow robots to cafeterias, enjoy innovative
experiences brought by VR/AR/MR, and chat up chatbots for relaxation (Belanche et al.,
2020; Prentice & Nguyen, 2020). In these situations, customers play the roles of convenience
seekers, judges, motivators, involuntary workers, and aid providers (Kelly et al., 2017), while
AI plays a substitutionary or intermediate role by building flexible, personalized intelligent
services that affect the quality of customer experiences (Prentice et al., 2020; Tung & Law,
4 M. LI ET AL.
2017), overall customer satisfaction and loyalty, and customer retention rates (Prentice
et al., 2020).
One concern regarding the influence of AI contactless services is whether AI technolo
gies can offset the loss of customers caused by decreased numbers of human employees,
who are traditionally at the center of hospitality services (Tasci & Semrad, 2016). According
to media equation theory (MET), the interactions between customers and technologies are
social and natural in essence (Reeves & Nass, 1996). Thus, technologies can also provide
hospitality services as long as customers perceive the features of these technologies to be the
same as those of human employees (Tung & Law, 2017). Due to their anthropomorphism
and high level of intelligence, AI technologies may lead customers to perceive an automated
social presence (Doorn et al., 2017). Thus, we propose that like employees, AI contactless
services can be antecedents of customer service outcomes (safety and quality).
According to means-end chain theory (MECT), when customers evaluate or buy
a service, their starting point is perceived value; to obtain value, it is essential for customers
to gain benefits (e.g., safety), and to realize these benefits, customers require services to have
certain attributes; in this way, an attributes-benefits-value-quality chain forms, where each
node is a means for an end corresponding to the node on its right (Reynolds & Olson, 2001).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, customers’ responses to services have also followed
MECT. When customers are served by AI, they may perceive psychological safety due to
the decreased level of human face-to-face contact in the context of the global pandemic (Chi
et al., 2020). Psychological safety represents an important benefit for customers, who have
a low sense of certainty control and may resist exposure to traumatic environments
(Cheung & Mohammed, 2019; Sayegh et al., 2004). Thus, psychological safety engenders
value, satisfying customers’ aspiration for quality (Schwartz, 2012).
Therefore, based on the MET and MECT, we developed the following research frame
work in this study (Figure 1).
The attributes of AI contactless services

AI contactless services differ from traditional services in many ways. First, such services are
provided to customers directly through various technologies based on or integrated with AI,
such as smart home systems, intelligent monitoring, lock systems with facial recognition
and service robots (Chi et al., 2020). These technologies determine the attributes of AI
contactless services to a great extent. Second, customers are motivated to cocreate value
through AI contactless services. With the help of AI, customers are empowered to complete
some tasks on their own, such as reservations, customized catering and innovative experi
ence (Kervenoael et al., 2020; Kim & Han, 2020). Third, interactions also occur between
employees and AI. In the context of AI contactless services, employees do not directly
connect with customers, but interactions between AI and employees occur in the back
ground to support service delivery (Keyser et al., 2019; Sigala, 2020).
Because of their differences from traditional services, AI contactless services present
specific characteristics. When AI technologies and hospitality enterprises are integrated,
the sensory properties of AI services play an important role (Prentice et al., 2020).
Sensory properties are prominently reflected in the sensorial appeal (e.g., esthetic
appearance, dulcet, good tactile feel) and correct actions of AI technologies (Ahn &
Seo, 2018; Tung & Au, 2018). They represent the form and construction of AI, such as
H2 Value of
Sensory perceived
properties control H10
H4 H3
H1 H5
Psychological H9 Service
Interactivity safety quality
H8 H7 H11
Hedonic
Responsiveness value
H6
Figure 1. A conceptual model of AI contactless services.

5
6 M. LI ET AL.
anthropomorphization and animalization (Tung & Law, 2017). The physical sensory
properties of AI can evoke a social presence and lead to perceptions of human empathy
(Kwak et al., 2013). Customers may extrapolate competence and enthusiasm from
appearances of AI, which further affects the establishment of trust (Čaić et al., 2019;
Wirtz et al., 2018).
Another important attribute of AI contactless services is responsiveness. Responsiveness
relates to appropriate and prompt responses to customers’ needs and requests and repre
sents the immersive features of AI devices that customers expect (Le et al., 2020; Samala
et al., 2019). Responsiveness has long been regarded as a key dimension of service quality in
the hospitality industry (e.g., SERVQUAL), and this also applies to AI services (Prentice &
Nguyen, 2020). In contrast to that of human employees, the responsiveness of AI relies on
recognition systems and big data, and exerts influence on customer engagement (Lin &
Hsieh, 2011; Prentice & Nguyen, 2020). A high level of responsiveness generally leads to
increased customer trust and satisfaction (Le et al., 2020; Noone et al., 2009).
Warm interactions, which are a necessity for hospitality, are another factor shaping AI
contactless services (Ivanov & Webster, 2019). The interactivity of AI contactless services
encompasses body communication that involves verbal and nonverbal behaviors that are
used to create face-to-face experiences for customers (Tung & Law, 2017). Interactivity, as
a subjective customer perception of AI, refers to how quickly an AI concierge can take
action to facilitate guests’ needs through instant and active communication with them, and
it describes the extent to which a customer can use an AI device to participate in service
cocreation (Shin & Jeong, 2020; Sreejesh et al., 2020; Yim et al., 2017). This factor is
consistent with customers’ expected behavioral norms (Choi et al., 2019). The way AI
interacts with customers can be measured according to interactivity (Morita et al., 2019),
which may impact customer use of AI and satisfaction (Ghantous, 2015).
Safety benefits
Safety is an important factor affecting consumers’ service selection, behaviors, and evalua
tions. Among the dimensions of safety, psychological safety has been was emphasized by
previous research, especially in the context of environments with risk (Kuppelwieser &
Finsterwalder, 2011). It was defined as people’s premonitions regarding possible dangers
and risks, as well as their sense of power or powerlessness related to coping with them
(Cong & An, 2004). Psychological safety is a feeling of confidence, security, and freedom in
the absence of fear and anxiety that leads to service consumption responses (Ha & Pan,
2017; Park, 2020).
AI contactless services could provide psychological safety for customers. As they face
risks related to the COVID-19 pandemic, customers seek psychological safety; thus, external
resources need to be reliable and empathetic (Ha & Pan, 2017). High-quality AI contactless
services could meet these requirements (Tung & Au, 2018). According to the social
cognition mechanism, customers judge a “server” as a “friend” or “enemy” based on his/
her embodiment during their first contact with him/her (Wykowska et al., 2016). A “friend”
perception is associated with good feelings, safety, and trust (Čaić et al., 2019). Generally,
affiliative or esthetic properties can arouse customers’ “friend” perceptions and decrease
their anxiety (Tussyadiah et al., 2020), thus inducing positive psychological perceptions and
acceptance (Doorn et al., 2017). Therefore, the sensory properties of AI contactless services
may lead to customer psychological safety.
Another attribute, namely, the interactivity of AI contactless services, can temporarily
separate customers from reality (Choi et al., 2019). Such a temporary “absence from reality”
can create a comfortable psychological boundary for tourists (Wang et al., 2019). In the
COVID-19 epidemic, as customers feel uncertain and anxious, trust is especially important
(Zhu et al., 2020), and interactivity is closely related to customer satisfaction and trust in
terms of maintaining relationship quality (Ghantous, 2015; Park, 2020). By promoting
customers’ active participation in service creation processes, and enabling automated social
interactions, the interactivity of AI services creates an “emotional exchange” that may lead
to customers’ perceptions of warmth, ability, trust and safety (Doorn et al., 2017; Ivanov &
Webster, 2019). Thus, interactivity may positively affect customer psychological safety.
Customer psychological safety could also be influenced by AI service responsiveness. In
the face of unknown threats, timely and accurate information responses are essential for
customers (Prentice & Nguyen, 2020). The longer it takes for customers to obtain service
responses, the more uncertain and less secure they may feel (Ha & Pan, 2017). AI services
integrate a wide range of data and strong recognition systems, so that customers can receive
responses quickly and effectively (Li et al., 2021). Thus, it is reasonable to propose that the
responsiveness of AI contactless services leads to customer psychological safety.
In summary, AI contactless services as situational incentives may relieve customers’ fear
through affiliative sensory properties, interactivity, and timely responsiveness; this gave rise
to the following hypothesis:
H1: Sensory properties (a), interactivity (b), and responsiveness (c), as attributes of AI
contactless services, have positive effects on customer psychological safety.
Value
Value is the main goal of customer consumption, and this law also applies to AI contactless
services (Schwartz, 2012). In the global pandemic, customers demand increased control
over services and enjoyment to relieve tension (Sigala & Sigala, 2006; Turner et al., 2020).
Customers’ perceived uncertainty in crises decreases if they have increased control of
service processes and service encounters (Turner et al., 2020). In addition, hedonic value,
which refers to the multisensory, fantastical, and emotive aspects of customer value,
including relaxation, pleasure, novelty, and excitement, is essential during the COVID
pandemic (Miao et al., 2014; Nambisan & Baron, 2009), especially for the hospitality
industry, which offers hedonistic services that feature esthetic appreciation, leisure and
entertainment as major activities (Miao et al., 2014; Yrjölä et al., 2019). The positive
influence of perceived control and hedonic value on the experience satisfaction of human-
computer co-designs has been supported by previous studies (Sigala & Sigala, 2006; Turner
et al., 2020), while the relationships between these factors and AI contactless services need
further discussion.
8 M. LI ET AL.
The value of perceived control

The value of perceived control refers to customers’ perceptions of the degree to which they
are independent and autonomous in terms of controlling time, service processes, and
content (Turner et al., 2020). The maximization of this value requires services to be
understood and predictable, and it determines customers’ judgment of whether a service
mode facilitates or frustrates their goal achievement (Shamdasani et al., 2008). Customers
control service processes through value cocreation, which is made possible through the use
of AI contactless services, where customers undertake a variety of roles, such as convenience
seekers, judges, motivated workers, involuntary workers, unskilled workers, and assistance
providers (Kelly et al., 2017). In this process, customers expect abundant information and
quick responses so that they can freely make decisions regarding service creation and
provisions (Lin & Hsieh, 2011). Thus, the responsiveness of AI contactless services could
facilitate customers’ perceived control. Regarding sensory properties, AI contactless services
involve fascinating voices, touches and mobilized carriers that allow customers to control
service offerings or atmosphere (Tung & Au, 2018), suggesting that AI contactless services
could enhance customers’ sense of control. Additionally, stronger interaction is conducive
to building service relationships between customers and hospitality enterprises and leads to
increases in the value of perceived control among customers (Choi et al., 2019; Tasci &
Semrad, 2016). Based on these analyses, the following hypothesis was proposed:
H2: Sensory properties (a), interactivity (b), and responsiveness (c), as attributes of AI
contactless services, have positive effects on the value of perceived control.
Customers’ perceived control over job or services relies on their psychological states
(Shamdasani et al., 2008). Anxiety caused by uncertain environments and unfamiliar
technologies may reduce customers’ acceptance of and trust in AI (Gursoy et al., 2019).
Psychological safety represents a reliable and supportive atmosphere that generally relieves
customers’ state of mind and mobilizes their five senses (Zhu et al., 2020). As a result,
customers may perceive that they have more control over themselves and the outside world,
leading us to propose the following hypothesis:
H3: Customer psychological safety positively influences the value of perceived control.
Functionally, AI can be used to monitor and guide people through the crises occurring
during the COVID-19 pandemic (Li et al., 2021). Thus, customers may perceive an
increased level of safety because of the timely responses and interactions of AI enabled
through the predictive analytics and adaptive designs provided by hospitality enterprises
(Tussyadiah, 2020). Meanwhile, psychological safety can ease customers’ concerns and
encourage them to engage in value cocreation through AI contactless services, which
enables them to gain additional mental benefits from sensory properties, interactivity,
and responsiveness, and obtain increased control over service processes (Kuppelwieser &
Finsterwalder, 2011; Zhao & Bacao, 2020). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H4: Customer psychological safety mediates the relationship between AI contactless ser
vices and the value of perceived control.
Hedonic value
Customers’ perceived control may further strengthen their hedonic value perceptions.
Hedonic value represents the sensory or affective benefits that customers reap from services
involving pleasure and enjoyment, and it is a critical component of enjoyable service
experiences (Ahn & Seo, 2018; Miao et al., 2014). Perceived control has been found to
positively affect customer emotional well-being in the COVID-19 pandemic (Yang & Ma,
2020). Through AI contactless services, customers can control service experiences by
modifying their content and form in real time, adjusting these services to be in line with
their own enjoyment expectations (Duman & Mattila, 2005; Sreejesh et al., 2020).
Therefore, customers could receive additional hedonic enjoyment from such services; this
gave rise to the following hypothesis:
H5: The value of perceived control has a positive influence on hedonic value.
AI contactless services could provide absorbing and enjoyable experiences (Nambisan &
Baron, 2009; Salimon et al., 2017). Innovative AI technologies and newly fashioned services
may satisfy customers’ neophilia and their demand for novelty, thus providing them with
hedonic value (Gursoy et al., 2019). AI contactless services could also generate hedonic
value for customers in that the immersive atmosphere that they create relieves customers
from their social environments in spirit and provides them with physical and mental leisure,
especially in the COVID-19 pandemic (Sreejesh et al., 2020). Thus, AI contactless services
may generate hedonic value.
More specifically, sensory properties and interactivity may produce hedonic experiences
for customers. Sensory properties rooted in AI service characteristics play an essential role
in stimulating customers’ optimistic emotions (Ahn & Seo, 2018), positive reactions, and
enjoyment (Nambisan & Baron, 2009; Yrjölä et al., 2019). Attractive intelligent voices,
movement, integrated music, lighting, and animation, can generate novelty and interest,
enhancing customers’ hedonic benefits (Ahn & Seo, 2018). Additionally, a high level of
interactivity within AI services stimulates immersive customer participation and promotes
customers’ sense of entertainment (Nambisan & Baron, 2009; Yim et al., 2017), suggesting
the positive effects of this factor on customers’ perceived hedonic value. Therefore, the
following hypothesis was proposed:
H6: The sensory properties (a) and interactivity (b) of AI contactless services have a positive
effect on hedonic value.
Psychological safety cannot be ignored when customers seek hedonic value through AI
services. Customers need a certain environment of psychological safety when cocreating
service experiences (Kuppelwieser & Finsterwalder, 2011). Psychological safety is a positive
emotion that is conducive to improving happiness in the COVID-19 pandemic (Yıldırım &
Güler, 2021). In AI contactless services, sensory properties and interactivity generate
positive hedonic experiences and memories (Ahn & Seo, 2018; Yim et al., 2017).
According to terror management theory, this kind of positive emotion encourages people
to view events and the future in an optimistic manner and experience less anxiety during
crises (Yıldırım & Güler, 2021). Therefore, we speculate that customers with a relatively
10 M. LI ET AL.
strong sense of psychological safety are more likely than others to fully experience the value
of pleasure (Salimon et al., 2017). We proposed the following:
H7: Customer psychological safety has a positive influence on hedonic value.
H8: Customer psychological safety mediates the relationship between sensory properties (a)
and interactivity (b) of AI contactless services and hedonic value.
Service quality
High-quality offerings are the main desire of customers, especially in the COVID-19
pandemic (Schwartz, 2012; Zeng et al., 2020). In contrast to traditional services, the
primary source of quality provided by AI contactless services is no longer only encounters
between humans; rather, service quality dramatically depends on the interactions between
customers and AI (Jiang & Wen, 2020). As human employees move to the background in
this service mode, trust and psychological safety become especially important (Wen et al.,
2020; Zhao & Bacao, 2020). Psychological unsafety and distrust brought by fear and
anxiety in the COVID-19 pandemic may hinder customers’ participation in value cocrea
tion, further affecting their quality perceptions (Ahmed et al., 2020). In contrast, psycho
logical safety can enhance customers’ perceptions of self-efficacy and service effectiveness,
increasing their evaluations of service outcomes (Wen et al., 2020). Therefore, psycholo
gical safety is a significant predictor of service quality, which led us to propose the
following hypothesis:
H9: Customer psychological safety positively influences service quality.
Perceived control over service is another influential factor when customers evaluate
service quality (Duman & Mattila, 2005). Perceived control demonstrates whether
a customer is a relatively motivated participant or an involuntary participant (Kelly et al.,
2017). In passive control, customers tend to focus on criticizing services, while active
control is associated with positive experiences (Shamdasani et al., 2008; Wen et al., 2020).
In other words, increased control may lead to positive service outcomes. Thus, the following
hypothesis was formulated:
H10: The value of perceived control positively influences service quality.
Another significant factor in terms of predicting service quality in hospitality contexts is

perceived hedonic value (Miao et al., 2014). AI strengthens customer experiences by
creating interactive, vivid, and abundant offerings that enhance customers’ hedonic benefits
(Hoyer et al., 2020). When customers feel pleased or excited about AI contactless services,
these positive emotions will enhance their judgments of these services (Tussyadiah et al.,
2018). Therefore, the following hypothesis was put forward:
H11: Hedonic value positively influences service quality.

Methodology
Setting and sample
Chinese hotels that had adopted AI technologies for frontline service encounters were
chosen as the setting of this study, and the customers that they served were surveyed.
There were reasons for this context choice. Chinese hospitality firms were the first to face
COVID-19, and some of them applied AI technologies to serve their customers and reduce
face-to-face contact in their effort to fight the virus. According to Yunji (yunjichina.com.
cn), the largest service robot provider for hotels in China, more than 2,000 hotels had
adopted service robots as of the end of 2020. The hotels that adopted various AI technol
ogies (e.g., face recognition and intelligent control), such as Fly Zoo Hotel Hangzhou,
enjoyed increasing popularity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many hotels in Wuhan,
China used AI tools to provide services to their customers, including self-driving cars,
vending machines, smart home tools, intelligent online services, robots (chat/delivery/
production robots), and XR technologies (AR/VR/MR). Thus, surveying these hotels and
analyzing their AI service practices could reveal implications for other similar contexts.
Two types of survey questionnaires were administered: an on-site face-to-face survey in
Wuhan, China and an online panel survey conducted by a survey company in China. The data
collection started in early August and was complete by the end of October 2020. Two research
assistants who had been trained regarding the research purpose and data collection require
ments of this study were assigned to conduct the on-site survey. The researchers contacted the
managers of the selected hotels (e.g., Grand Mercure Wuhan), who approved the questionnaire
distributions. Hotel customers who had experienced AI services during their stays were selected.
A small gift was given to each respondent to encourage their participation in the survey. In the
end, we collected a total of 133 responses and identified 109 valid responses after excluding any
incomplete questionnaires. The other approach to data collection that was adopted utilized an
online panel survey with the help of a third-party online survey company with large sample base
members, namely, Questionnaire Star (www.wjx.cn). The company distributed the question
naire after screening for qualified users through the use of keywords (i.e., “hotel customers who
have experienced AI contactless services”). Those who had participated in the on-site survey in
Wuhan were asked not to fill out the questionnaire again. Finally, 321 responses were collected
through online panel survey, and 207 valid responses were identified after eliminating any
surveys with completion times that were significantly low (less than 3 minutes) or with
inconsistent answers to a screening question purposely included in the questionnaire.
Measurement scales
The constructs in the proposed model were mainly measured with scales that had been
developed in previous studies, which were appropriately adjusted to fit the context of current
research (i.e., hotels). The esthetics of sensory properties were measured based on Tung and Au
(2018) and Belanche et al. (2020), which highlighted key auditory, touch, and mobility features.
Interactivity was measured with the scale developed by Ghantous (2015), who took into account
interaction frequencies, interest and duration to accurately reflect the complexity and multi
faceted nature of interactions. The instrument for responsiveness was adapted from Lin and
Hsieh (2011), and it encompassed timeliness, comprehensiveness, fluency, and accuracy.
12 M. LI ET AL.
To purify the scales on the sensory properties, interactivity, and responsiveness of AI

contactless services, a pilot study was conducted, which resulted in approximately 93 useful
questionnaires. These data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with
principal component extraction and maximum variance rotation. The results suggested
that the data were appropriate for factor analysis (KMO = 0.823; Bartllet’s test significant at
.00). After this EFA, 13 items were identified and three factors were generated; the items
loaded on the factors in the same way as those adopted from the original studies. The three
factors (i.e., sensory properties, interactivity and responsiveness) explained more than 68%
of the total variance; additionally, the factor loadings ranged from 0.660 to 0.898, demon
strating high levels of reliability and validity.
Customer psychological safety was measured with the scale developed by Ariffin et al.
(2018); however, the items were reverse scored and the questionnaire answers were reversed
before the structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. The four-item scale developed by
Turner et al. (2020) was used to measure the value of perceived control. The measurement
used for hedonic value was based on Nambisan and Baron (2009), which has been widely
cited. The items measuring service quality as a reflective construct were adopted from
Theodosiou et al. (2019), and they represented the degree of customer demand.
A 7-point Likert scale was adopted to measure the items, ranging from 1 (“totally
disagree”) to 7 (“totally agree”). These variables, together with the demographic variables
and control variables, formed the questionnaire for the survey.
Control variables
Control variables were also included to consider the possible influence of other factors on
the proposed model. The participating customers’ demographic characteristics (e.g., gen
der, age, and income) were used as control variables because they may influence customers’
evaluations. The frequency of their past visits and their level of understanding regarding AI
technologies were also used as control variables, considering the impact of these factors on
customer service outcomes (Ivanov & Webster, 2019). The survey data with all the variables
were analyzed using SEM analysis with Mplus 7.4.
Results
Descriptive analysis
To check the reliability of the data collection, the data from the two sources were compared.
The distribution of the responses to each question based on the on-site survey data (n = 109)
was used as the expected share, while the corresponding distribution based on the online
panel data (n = 207) was treated as the hypothesized share. Then, the differences between
these two shares were observed. The chi-square statistics suggested that the two datasets had
no significant differences (Table 2). Thus, the two datasets were combined as one, which
would be analyzed during all the subsequent analyses.
Table 3 lists the demographic information of the respondents. Of the 316 participants,
there were more female respondents (58.5%) than male respondents (41.5%). Most of the
participants were aged between 18 and 45 years old (90.2%). The majority of the respon
dents held a college degree or a higher (96.8%), and most of them earned an average
Table 2. Difference tests of the response distributions based on the two datasets.
Variables χ2 df p-value Variables χ2 df p-value
I1 10.2191 6 0.1157 PC1 12.1975 6 0.0577
I2 11.3003 6 0.0795 PC2 11.5636 6 0.0724
I3 9.0234 6 0.1723 PC3 12.2462 6 0.0567
I4 11.0492 6 0.0869 PC4 11.7814 6 0.0670
I5 9.8135 6 0.1327 H1 10.6540 6 0.0997
R1 11.7741 6 0.0672 H2 11.5720 6 0.0722
R2 11.8259 6 0.0660 H3 10.9497 6 0.0899
R3 11.1942 6 0.0826 H4 11.0254 6 0.0876
R4 11.9964 6 0.0620 SQ1 12.1239 6 0.0593
SP1 12.0455 6 0.0610 SQ2 12.0809 6 0.0602
SP2 11.7509 6 0.0678 SQ3 11.7843 6 0.0670
SP3 11.2971 6 0.0796 SQ4 11.3795 6 0.0773
SP4a 9.8214 5 0.0805 Gender 0.2281 1 0.6329
PS1 9.5842 6 0.1433 Age 5.9858 3 0.1123
PS2 11.0827 6 0.0859 Education 5.1984 2 0.0743
PS3 10.2462 6 0.1147 Income 7.0032 3 0.0718
PS4 11.1152 6 0.0849 Visit frequency 1.1954 2 0.5501
AI Technology familiarity 2.7774 3 0.4272
Note: (1) Two datasets are on-site survey data (n = 109) and online panel data (n = 207). Chi square tests were conducted
with the former being treated as the expected shares of variables. (2) I1~ I5: variables measuring Interactivity; R1~ R4:
variables measuring responsiveness; SP1~ SP4: variables measuring Sensory properties; PS1~ PS4: variables measuring
psychological safety; PC1~ PC4: variables measuring value of perceived control; H1~ H4: variables measuring hedonic
value; SQ1~ SQ4: variables measuring service quality. (3) a No respondent gave the score 1 (strongly disagree) to the
variable E4.
Table 3. Descriptive characteristics of respondents (n = 316).

Variables Categories Frequency Distribution (%)
Gender Male 131 41.5%
Female 185 58.5%
Age 18–35 221 69.9%
36–45 64 20.3%
46–55 22 7%
56 or over 9 2.8%
Education Less than high school 10 3.2%
College degree 232 73.4%
Graduate and higher 74 23.4%
Average monthly income Below ￥3000 25 7.9%
￥3001-￥6000 69 21.8%
￥6001-￥10,000 140 44.3%
￥10,001 and above 82 25.9%
The number of visiting the hotel The first time 72 22.8%
The second time 121 38.3%
The third time or more 123 38.9%
Knowledge of AI Not understanding 24 7.6%
Understanding 186 58.9%
Familiar 100 31.6%
proficient 6 1.9%
monthly income of 6000 or more (69.9%). In regard to service experience, many of the
participants had visited the surveyed hotels two or more times (74.1%), and most of them
knew about or were familiar with AI (90.5%).
Normality tests of the variables were conducted. The results suggested that the skewness
values of the variables lay between −1.261 (R3) and 1.708 (Q5), and the low- and high-
boundary kurtosis values were −1.891 (Q4) and 2.605 (Q5). Since the absolute values of
14 M. LI ET AL.
skewness and kurtosis were lower than 3 and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test statistic
indicated no significant deviation from normality, the data were regarded as approximately
normally distributed.
To assess the potential common method variance within the data due to its single-source
nature, we carried out Harman’s one-factor test. The results indicated that the most
common variance explained by a single factor was 34.9%, which is far lower than the cutoff
point of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Thus, common method bias was not a serious threat.
Overall measurement model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to check the adequacy of the overall
measurement model. The results indicated that the model fit the data well: The ratio of Chi-
square to degrees of freedom (647.207/301 = 2.15) was less than 3; CFI (0.917) and TLI
(0.903) values exceeded the recommended cutoff value (0.9); RMSEA (=0.06) was less than
the cutoff point of 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
The validity and reliability of the measurement model is demonstrated by the results
shown in Tables 2 and 3. The factor loadings of the items ranged from 0.605 to 0.877, were
all higher than 0.6, indicating a satisfactory significance (Hair et al., 2011). The Cronbach’s
alpha values of all the constructs or factors were greater than 0.70, indicating acceptable
reliability (Hair et al., 2011) (Table 4). The average variance extracted (AVE) values of the
constructs were between 0.511 and 0.591; therefore, all of them exceeded 0.5. Thus, the
measurements exhibited high convergent validity. Additionally, the square root of AVE of
each construct was greater than the correlations between that construct and the others,
suggesting that the constructs had adequate discriminant validity (Table 5).
Hypotheses testing
SEM was conducted using Mplus version 7.4 to test the proposed hypotheses. The adequacy
of the goodness-of-fit was supported: χ2 = 589.209; df = 306; CFI = 0.938 (>0.9); TLI = 0.929
(>0.9); RMSEA = .054 (<0.08).
The SEM indicated that most of the proposed hypotheses regarding direct effects were
supported, except for H1a, H2b, and H3 (Figure 2), with squared multiple correlations
(R-squared) for the endogenous constructs all being high. Specifically, two dimensions of AI
contactless services had a positive effect on customer psychological safety, while the
examined sensory properties did not (Table 6). Responsiveness of AI contactless services
positively influenced customer psychological safety (β = 0.691; t = 6.837***), and a similar
conclusion was reached regarding the impact of interactivity on psychological safety
(β = 0.199; t = 2.405*). Thus, H1 was partially supported, with H1b and H1c being
supported but H1a not. Additionally, two attributes of AI contactless services significantly
and positively affected the value of perceived control, namely, sensory properties (β = 0.238;
t = 2.881**) and responsiveness (β = 0.890; t = 7.613***), while the proposed path from
interactivity to the value of perceived control was not supported (t = −0.592). Thus, H2 was
partially supported. Additionally, the effect of customer psychological safety on the value of
Table 4. Results of the measurement model.

Factor t-
Constructs Items loading value Mean SD CR AVE
Sensory 0.789 0.556
properties
Generally, the appearance of the hotel’s AI is appealing 0.687 NA 5.15 1.281
for me
Generally, the voice of the hotel’s AI is very sweet for 0.769 11.461 5.25 1.271
me
Generally, the touch of the hotel’s AI is very 0.777 11.54 5.14 1.294
comfortable for me
Interactivity 0.862 0.559
I communicate with AI about products and services 0.825 NA 4.71 1.335
frequently at the hotel
I exchange with AI about the general thing, not related 0.629 11.711 3.93 1.532
to the hotel frequently at the hotel
Generally, I communicate and discuss with the AI of this 0.877 17.829 4.65 1.449
hotel frequently
Generally, I am interested in exchanging and discussing 0.736 14.27 5.40 1.423
with the AI
I believe the duration I actively communicating with AI 0.639 11.943 4.77 1.372
should have been much longer
Responsiveness 0.853 0.591
Generally, I can get my service with the hotel’s AI 0.742 NA 5.48 1.134
quickly
The hotel’s AI responds to my requests quickly 0.788 13.939 5.59 1.142
I can get my service smoothly with the hotel’s AI 0.795 14.07 5.39 1.184
The hotel’s AI provides me real-time and 0.749 13.208 5.40 1.176
comprehensive information needed to complete the
service
Psychological 0.796 0.570
Safety I cannot trust the AI service of this hotel 0.876 NA 5.41 1.247
I fear that the AI service of the hotel can’t satisfy me 0.760 11.135 4.79 1.403
I could be frustrated if I am dissatisfied with the quality 0.605 9.117 4.60 1.299
of AI service
Value of 0.806 0.511
Perceived I was satisfied with the amount of control I had over the 0.750 NA 5.23 1.054
Control service process of AI.
The service of AI gave me control over personalizing my 0.753 12.759 5.25 1.127
own service.
I feel that the AI gave me complete autonomy over the 0.703 11.91 5.26 1.186
service process.
I felt that I had a lot of control while staying at the 0.648 10.948 4.86 1.084
hotel.
Hedonic Value 0.820 0.533
I spend some enjoyable and relaxing time with AI. 0.789 NA 5.59 1.072
I derive fun and pleasure from AI service. 0.727 13.632 5.53 1.117
AI entertains and stimulates my mind. 0.638 11.673 4.97 1.230
With the AI service of the hotel, I derive enjoyment from 0.758 14.324 5.32 1.163
problem-solving, idea generation, etc.
Service Quality 0.822 0.535
This hotel provides a high level of overall service 0.747 NA 5.61 1.031
This hotel provides convenient service 0.709 12.202 5.90 1.076
This hotel provides reliable service 0.712 12.263 5.66 1.082
This hotel provides helpful assistance 0.757 13.074 5.71 1.138
Note: Reverse scale was used for the measurement of psychological safety. In the analysis of results, “1,2,3” and “7,6,5” were
respectively replaced with each other as a positive composition. “NA” means that the corresponding regression weight was
automatically fixed at 1.00 by Mplus software and not estimated (e.g., when “Sensory properties” goes up by 1, “Generally,
the appearance of the hotel’s AI is appealing for me” goes up by 1).
16 M. LI ET AL.
Table 5. Discriminant validity of the measurement model.

Construct I R SP PS VPC HV SQ
Interactivity (I) 0.748
Responsiveness(R) 0.466** 0.769
Sensory properties (SP) 0.498** 0.578** 0.746
Psychological Safety (PS) 0.201** 0.492** 0.351** 0.755
Value of Perceived Control (VPC) 0.457** 0.673** 0.57** 0.323** 0.715
Hedonic Value (HV) 0.553** 0.714** 0.671** 0.432** 0.698** 0.730
Service Quality (SQ) 0.396** 0.707** 0.589** 0.434** 0.585** 0.649** 0.731
Note: (1) Diagonal values are the square roots of AVE. (2) Reverse scale was used for the measurement of psychological safety.
In the analysis of results, “1,2,3” and “7,6,5” were respectively replaced with each other as a positive composition. (3)
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 6. Results of hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis Path Estimate t-value Decision
H1a Sensory properties→ Psychological safety 0.124 1.28 Unsupported
H1b Interactivity → Psychological safety (+) 0.199 2.405* Supported
H1c Responsiveness → Psychological safety (+) 0.691 6.837*** Supported
H2a Sensory properties→ Value of perceived control (+) 0.238 2.881** Supported
H2b Interactivity → Value of perceived control −0.043 −0.592 Unsupported
H2c Responsiveness → Value of perceived control (+) 0.890 7.613*** Supported
H3 Psychological safety → Value of perceived control −0.240 −3.123** Unsupported
H5 Perceived control → Hedonic value (+) 0.526 7.006*** Supported
H6a Sensory properties→ Hedonic value (+) 0.225 2.991** Supported
H6b Interactivity → Hedonic value (+) 0.210 3.744*** Supported
H7 Psychological safety → Hedonic value (+) 0.178 3.596*** Supported
H9 Psychological safety → Service quality (+) 0.259 4.014*** Supported
H10 Value of perceived control → Service quality (+) 0.327 2.386* Supported
H11 Hedonic value → Service quality (+) 0.401 2.678** Supported
Note: (1) Reverse scale was used for the measurement of psychological safety. In the analysis of results, “1,2,3” and “7,6,5”
were respectively replaced with each other as a positive composition. (2) *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
perceived control was significant, but negative (β = −0.240; t = −3.123***), suggesting that
H3 was not supported.
The existence of a safety-value-quality chain was confirmed in the context of the
hospitality industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results indicated that psycholo
gical safety had a positive effect on customers’ perceptions of hedonic value (β = 0.178;
t = 3.596***) and service quality (β = 0.259; t = 4.014***). Perceived control was also
associated with hedonic value (β = 0.526; t = 7.006***). Additionally, both the value of
perceived control (β = 0.327; t = 2.386*) and hedonic value (β = 0.401; t = 2.678**)
significantly and positively influenced perceived service quality. Thus, H3, H5, H7, H9,
H10, and H11 were all supported.
The proposed mediating role of customer psychological safety was also tested. Since
sensory properties of AI contactless services did not significantly affect psychological safety,
this factor did not play mediating roles in the sensory properties-value relationships. In
other words, H4a and H8a were not supported. In addition, the mediation test results
suggested that psychological safety mediated the relationship between responsiveness and
perceived control but this effect was negative (β = −0.103; t = −2.002; effect size
(ES) = −0.131). The mediating effect of psychological safety on the relationship between
interactivity and perceived control was not significant (β = 0.063; t = 1.369; ES = 0.087).
Thus, H4b and H4c were not supported (Table 7). Also, the mediating effects of
Value of R2=.81
H2c 0.890***
Responsiveness perceived
control
R2=.45 R2=.76
0.526***
Sensory H1a 0.124 Psychological H9 Service
properties safety 0.259*** quality
R2=.89
H6b 0.210*** Hedonic

Interactivity value
Figure 2. Results of structural equation modeling. Note: (1) Reverse scale was used for the measurement of psychological safety. In the analysis of results, “1,2,3”
and “7,6,5” were respectively replaced with each other as a positive composition. (2) The order of three attributes of AI contactless services has been adjusted
(compared with Figure 1) to make the path results more readable.(3) *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05
17
18 M. LI ET AL.
Table 7. Results of indirect effects.

Effect
Hypothesis Total indirect paths Estimate t-value size Results
H4b Interactivity → Psychological safety → Value of perceived 0.063 1.369 0.087 Unsupported
control
H4c Responsiveness → Psychological safety → Value of perceived −0.103 −2.002* −0.131 Unsupported
control
H8b Interactivity → Psychological safety →Hedonic value 0.110 2.627** 0.196 Supported
H8c Responsiveness → Psychological safety →Hedonic value 0.147 2.670** 0.158 Supported
Note: (1) The mediating path “responsiveness→psychological safety→value of perceived control” was significant but the
direction was negative (not positive as proposed). (2) *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
psychological safety on the relationships of interactivity (β = 0.110; t = 2.627; ES = 0.196)

and responsiveness (β = 0.147; t = 2.670; ES = 0.158) with hedonic value were significant.
Thus, H8b and H8c were supported.
Discussion and implications

General results discussion
The current study specifically investigated the attributes of contactless services with AI
technologies. We adopted MET and MECT in the context of hospitality services against the
background of the COVID-19 pandemic, and revealed the influence mechanism of AI
contactless services on hotel service evaluations through the channels of customer psycho
logical safety and perceived value. Many valuable conclusions were reached.
Overall, the characteristics of AI contactless services have significant effects on custo
mers’ perceptions of psychological safety, value, and service quality. Specifically, the inter
activity and responsiveness of AI services were shown to be beneficial in terms of promoting
customer psychological safety. This finding is consistent with previous research, which
argued that timely, informative responses during crises promotes psychological safety and
trust building (Zhu et al., 2020). However, sensory properties were not shown to signifi
cantly lead to psychological safety. It seems that customers are more concerned about the
effectiveness of AI technologies than their physical appearance or touch when seeking
safety.
AI contactless services and psychological safety are important antecedents of the per
ceived value of customers. Sensory properties and responsiveness were found to positively
affect customers’ value of perceived control. This finding supplemented developed by
previous studies on AI integration into services (Ivanov & Webster, 2019; Kwak et al.,
2013). In addition, sensory properties and interactivity of AI contactless services had
positive effects on hedonic value. This finding is in line with previous research that claimed
that customers enjoy services that employ smart technologies (Gursoy et al., 2019; Wen
et al., 2020). Psychological safety also generated the hedonic value for customers. However,
unexpectedly, psychological safety was shown to negatively influence the value of perceived
control. This might be the case because customers seek safety in a global pandemic while
feeling that they have a decreased level of control over their environments.
This study revealed that psychological safety and perceived value are important deter
minants of service quality that customers expect in crisis situations. Psychological safety and
perceived control have significant effects on hedonic value and service quality evaluations.
As a kind of positive emotion, psychological safety can influence on distress, happiness

(Yıldırım & Güler, 2021) and service evaluation (Wen et al., 2020). When customers
perceive an increased level of control and hedonic value while using AI contactless services,
they are more likely to perceive an increased level of service quality. These findings validated
the safety-value-quality relationship in the context of hospitality services.
The present study specifically examined the complex roles of psychological safety. As
customers gradually recovered from the COVID-19 epidemic, the effects of psychological
safety on their value of perceived control and perceived hedonic value varied in such a way
that the former was negative and the latter was positive. The reason for this phenomenon
may be that in the post-pandemic era, sense of control was not emphasized by customers. In
contrast, the hedonic value brought by AI services became increasingly popular and
predominant. Responsiveness not only was positively related to customers’ perceived
control and hedonic value but also influenced these two values through psychological
safety. Psychological safety also mediated the impact of interactivity on hedonic value,
but not the effect of AI contactless service attributes on perceived control. These findings
enhance the current understanding of psychological safety in public health emergencies.
Theoretical contributions
The research findings of the present study could enhance the understanding of AI contact
less services, marginally extend the applications of MET and MECT to a new context, and
contribute to the research on the influence of AI applications in the hospitality industry.
The attributes of AI contactless services were first examined from the perspective of service
encounters. Previous research on AI services mainly focused on AI characteristics related to
technology functions or utility, such as anthropomorphism and perceived intelligence
(Gursoy et al., 2019; Qiu et al., 2020). However, the attributes of AI contactless services
are not known. In other words, when an AI serves customers directly and independently,
what are the features or utilities of these services? The results of factor analyses suggest that
sensory properties, interactivity, and responsiveness can explain AI contactless services.
These results can be used in future research regarding AI services.
This study also supplemented MET and MECT in the context of AI services during the
COVID-19 pandemic. According to previous research, questions arise regarding whether
AI services can meet customers’ needs and whether these services cause customers to
experience emotional release and feelings of safety (Choi et al., 2019; Prentice & Nguyen,
2020). The findings of the present study suggested that AI services with high-quality
attributes could create value and benefits for customers. It is possible that as AI technologies
are developed, they will be able to elicit service perceptions from customers that are similar
to those elicited by services offered by human employees. Thus, MET can be extended to
a new context, namely, that of AI contactless services. The safety-value-quality model
formed and tested by our study indicates that during the COVID-19 pandemic, certain
attributes of AI services had an impact on customer psychology and value perceptions. This
model extended MECT by suggesting that AI service attributes are a source of benefits and
value.
This study contributed to the literature on AI service encounters by revealing the role of
psychological safety. Psychological safety has complex effects on various perceptions in that
it may facilitate the perceived hedonic value of customers but also hinder their perceived
20 M. LI ET AL.
control. In AI contactless services, human-technology interactions represent a critical

moment of truth and the core of the formation of service quality. While previous studies
have focused on performance, effort and function in relation to AI applications, the vital
role of customer psychological safety has received little attention (Gursoy et al., 2019; Lin
et al., 2020; Prentice et al., 2020). In the current study, we found that psychological safety
has a significant impact on service value and quality and that it mediates certain relation
ships between various attributes of AI contactless services and perceived values. These
findings contribute to the research on service encounters, especially those involving AI
technologies, by considering and clarifying the role of psychological safety.
Furthermore, this study provides important implications for research on the influence of
artificial intelligence technologies in the hospitality industry. It uncovers the direct and
indirect paths from the responsiveness, sensory properties, and interactivity of AI contact
less services to service quality via psychological safety, perceived control, and hedonic value.
This research helps to identify the conditions, settings and values under which the char
acteristics of AI contactless services will benefit customers.
Managerial implications
AI technology applications have been useful for disease treatment, disease prevention, and
healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the cognitive process that consumers
underwent when markets were shocked by COVID-19 and how AI contactless services have
influenced consumers’ psychological safety in this context are still unknown. This study fills
this gap, and its results can be used for AI contactless service design, customer contact and
relationship management in the hotel industry.
Measures can be taken to improve the design of AI contactless services. Although the
relationship between sensory properties and customer psychological safety was not signifi
cant, sensory properties enhanced the examined customers’ perceived control, hedonic
value, and service quality. Thus, hotel managers should make AI technologies more
appealing in terms of appearance, voice, and touch by providing physical forms to make
AI visible by improving its audio capabilities. Both interactivity and responsiveness have
direct and important influences on customer psychological safety, values, and service
quality. Therefore, managers of hospitality firms should improve the interaction perfor
mance of their AI equipment, focus on ensuring timely responses, and simplify the use of
services to improve service encounters and outcomes. For example, it is important to
improve the speech and facial recognition systems of AI to make the related services
more responsive and customize immersive interactions based on historical consumption
data to attract more customers and create positive results.
Efforts should be made to manage customer contacts and relationships. Psychological
safety played an important role in AI contactless services during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Therefore, hotel managers should prioritize customer psychological safety and pay atten
tion to factors that could eliminate their customers’ fear, distrust and frustration during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Measures can be implemented to foster a sense of psychological
safety, such as improving the responsiveness of AI services through service process opti
mization and appropriate support from background employees and creating amiable AI
images for customers to view in terms of visual esthetics, anthropomorphic sounds and
intimate contact.
Limitations and future research

The current study still has some limitations, which may also indicate future research
directions. In contrast to some other studies regarding the effect of COVID-19 on customer
perceptions (Kim et al., 2021), we focused on the attributes and impacts of AI contactless
services, and our analysis of the influence of the pandemic on customer perceptions was
indirect. Future research could include more direct COVID-19-related variables in a model,
such as the risk level of survey sites and anti-pandemic policies. In addition, culture was
ignored in this conceptual model. This study was conducted in China, where local residents
show less concern about privacy issues related to their personal or biometric data. If
Europeans were recruited for such a study, the results could be different. For example,
Čaić et al. (2018) found that in European countries, such as the Netherlands, assistive robots
for elderly users were regarded by many people as intruders because of the privacy threat
represented by robots. Thus, future research could consider the influence of culture and test
our model in other scenarios, such as tourism business sectors or other service industries, to
increase its generalizability.
Only three standard attributes of AI contactless services were compared with those of
human employee services: sensory properties, interactivity, and responsiveness. Future
research should consider other possible intrinsic attributes of AI contactless services, such
as empathy and assurance, to obtain insightful results. In addition, we are still in the age of
“weak AI,” and most “AI technologies” are traditional technologies integrated with AI. As
a result, the forms of AI applications used to provide services are diverse. Future research
could focus on the differences between these AI applications and examine their influences
individually.
The research model proposed by the current study can be further extended. For custo
mers with different demographic profiles, the influence of AI services on safety, value, and
quality may differ. For example, in contrast to young people, elderly customers may be
psychologically resistant to the use of AI technologies (Makki et al., 2016). The roles of
customer traits and motivations are also important and could be examined in future
research. In addition, the application of AI technologies to services may take many forms.
This study only focused on AI contactless services where customers are served by technol
ogies and employees assist at a distance. Future studies could focus on the impact of contact
services with both employees and AI on customer service outcomes, examining interactions
between AI technologies and employees.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC) under Grant No.
19CGL031.
ORCID
Minglong Li http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6387-2186
22 M. LI ET AL.
References
Ahmed, M. Z., Ahmed, O., Aibao, Z., Hanbin, S., Siyu, L., Ahmad, A. (2020). Epidemic of COVID-19
in China and associated psychological problems. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51(3), 1–7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102092
Ahn, J. A., & Seo, S. (2018). Consumer responses to interactive restaurant self-service technology
(IRSST): the role of gadget-loving propensity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 74
(8), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.02.020
Ariffin, S. K., Mohan, T., & Goh, Y. (2018). Influence of consumers’ perceived risk on consumers’
online purchase intention. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 12(3), 309–327. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JRIM-11-2017-0100
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Schepers, J. (2020). Service robot implementation:
A theoretical framework and research agenda. Service Industries Journal, 40(3–4), 203–225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1672666
Buhalis, D., & Sinarta, Y. (2019). Real-time co-creation and nowness service: Lessons from tourism
and hospitality. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(5), 563–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10548408.2019.1592059
Čaić, M., Mahr, D., & Oderkerken-schröder, G. (2019). Value of social robots in services: Social
cognition perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 4(4), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-
02-2018-0080
Cheung, M., & Mohammed, F. (2019). The trajectory of bombing-related posttraumatic stress
disorder among Iraqi civilians: shattered world assumptions and altered self-capacities as media
tors; attachment and crisis support as moderators. Psychiatry Research, 273(3), 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.01.001
Chi, O. H., Denton, G., & Gursoy, D. (2020). Artificially intelligent device use in service delivery:
A systematic review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 29(7), 757–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2020.1721394
Choi, Y., Choi, M., Oh, M., & Kim, S. (2019). Service robots in hotels: Understanding the service
quality perceptions of human-robot interaction. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Cong, Z., & An, L. (2004). Developing of security questionnaire and its reliability and validity. Mental
Health Impurity in China, 18(2), 97–99.
Doorn, J. V., Mende, M., Noble, S. M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A. L., Grewal, D., Petersen, J. A. (2017).
Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto: emergence of automated social presence in Organizational frontlines
and customers’ service experiences. Journal of Service Research, 20(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1094670516679272
Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value.
Tourism Management, 26(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.11.014
Ghantous, N. (2015). Re-examining encounter intensity’s conceptualisation, measurement and role.
Service Industries Journal, 35(5), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2015.1002479
Gursoy, D., Chi, O. H., Lu, L., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent
(AI) device use in service delivery. International Journal of Information Management, 49(12),
157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008
Ha, H. Y., & Pan, H. (2017). The evolution of perceived security: the temporal role of SNS informa
tion perceptions. Internet Research, 28(4), 1055–1078. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-02-2017-0047
Hoyer, W. D., Kroschke, M., Schmitt, B., Kraume, K., & Shankar, V. (2020). Transforming the
customer experience through new technologies. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 51, 57–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.04.001
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ivanov, S., & Webster, C. (2019). Robots, Artificial Intelligence, and Service Automation in Travel,
Tourism and Hospitality. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Jiang, Y., & Wen, J. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on hotel marketing and management: A perspective
article. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(8), 2563–2573. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2020-0237
Kelly, P., Lawlor, J., & Mulvey, M. (2017). Customer roles in self-service technology encounters in
a tourism context. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 34(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10548408.2016.1156612
Kervenoael, R. D., Hasan, R., Schwob, A., & Goh, E. (2020). Leveraging human-robot interaction in
hospitality services: incorporating the role of perceived value, empathy, and information sharing
into visitors’ intentions to use social robots. Tourism Management, 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2019.104042
Keyser, A. D., Köcher, S., Alkire, L., Verbeeck, C., & Kandampully, J. (2019). Frontline service
technology infusion: Conceptual archetypes and future research directions. Journal of Service
Management, 30(1), 156–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-03-2018-0082
Kim, J. J., & Han, H. (2020). Hotel of the future : Exploring the attributes of a smart hotel adopting a
mixed-methods approach. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(7), 804–822. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10548408.2020.1835788
Kim, S. S., Kim, J., Badu-Baiden, F., Giroux, M., & Choi, Y. (2021). Preference for robot service or
human service in hotels? impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 93(2), 102795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102795
Kuppelwieser, V. G., & Finsterwalder, J. (2011). Psychological safety, contributions and service
satisfaction of customers in group service experiences. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, 21(6), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521111185619
Kwak, S. S., Kim, Y., Kim, E., Shin, C., & Cho, K. (2013). What makes people empathize with an
emotional robot? The impact of agency and physical embodiment on human empathy for a robot.
2013 IEEE RO-MAN, 26–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2013.6628441
Le, V. H., Thai, H., Nguyen, T., Nguyen, N., & Pervan, S. (2020). Development and validation of
a scale measuring hotel website service quality (HWebSQ). Tourism Management Perspectives, 35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100697
Lee, S. M., & Lee, D. (2021). Opportunities and challenges for contactless healthcare services in the
post-COVID-19 era. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2021.120712
Li, M., Yin, D., Qiu, H., & Bai, B. (2021). A systematic review of AI technology-based service
encounters: implications for hospitality and tourism operations. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 95(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102930
Lin, H., Chi, O. H., & Gursoy, D. (2020). Antecedents of customers’ acceptance of artificially
intelligent robotic device use in hospitality services. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Lin, J. C., & Hsieh, P. (2011). Assessing the self-service technology encounters: development and
validation of SSTQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 87(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.
2011.02.006
Makki, A. M., Ozturk, A., & Singh, D. (2016). Role of risk, self-efficacy, and innovativeness on
behavioral intentions for mobile payment systems in the restaurant industry. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, 19(5), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2016.1188646
Miao, L., Lehto, X., & Wei, W. (2014). The hedonic value of hospitality consumption: evidence from
spring break experiences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(2), 99–121. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2013.766582
Morita, T., Kashiwagi, N., Yorozu, A., Suzuki, H., & Yamaguchi, T. (2019). Evaluation of a multi -
robot cafe based on service quality. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, 14(1), 55–76. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12626-019-00049-x
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Virtual customer environments: testing a model of voluntary
participation in value co-creation activities. Product Development & Management Association, 26
(4), 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00667.x
Park, S. (2020). Multifaceted trust in tourism service robots. Annals of Tourism Research, 81. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102888
24 M. LI ET AL.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Prentice, C., Lopes, S. D., & Wang, X. (2020). The impact of artificial intelligence and employee
service quality on customer satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Prentice, C., & Nguyen, M. (2020). Engaging and retaining customers with AI and employee service.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 56(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.
102186
Qiu, H., Li, M., Shu, B., & Bai, B. (2020). Enhancing hospitality experience with service robots: the
mediating role of rapport building. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(3),
247–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1645073
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new
media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds, T. J., & Olson, J. C. (2001). Understanding consumer decision making: The means-end
approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Psychology Press.
Salimon, M. G., Yusoff, R. Z. B., & Mokhtar, S. S. M. (2017). The mediating role of hedonic
motivation on the relationship between adoption of e-banking and its determinants.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(4), 558–582. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-05-2016-
0060
Samala, N., Katkam, B. S., Bellamkonda, R. S., & Rodriguez, R. V. (2019). Impact of AI and robotics in
the tourism sector: A critical insight. Journal of Tourism Futures. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-07-
2019-0065
Sayegh, L., Anthony, W. P., & Perrewe, P. L. (2004). Managerial decision-making under crisis: the role
of emotion in an intuitive decision process. Human Resource Management Review, 14(2), 179–199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.05.002
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Shamdasani, P., Mukherjee, A., & Malhotra, N. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of service
quality in consumer evaluation of self-service internet technologies. The Service Industries Journal,
28(1), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060701725669
Shin, H. H., & Jeong, M. (2020). Guests’ perceptions of robot concierge and their adoption intentions.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(8), 2613–2633. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJCHM-09-2019-0798
Sigala, M. (2020). Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting
industry and research. Journal of Business Research, 117, 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.06.015
Sigala, M., & Sigala, M. (2006). Mass customisation implementation models and customer value in
mobile phones services: preliminary findings from Greece. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, 66(4), 395–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610675720
Sreejesh, S., Paul, J., Strong, C., & Pius, J. (2020). Consumer response towards social media advertis
ing: effect of media interactivity, its conditions and the underlying mechanism. International
Journal of Information Management, 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102155
Tasci, A. D. A., & Semrad, K. J. (2016). Developing a scale of hospitableness: A tale of two worlds.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53(2), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.
2015.11.006
Theodosiou, M., Katsikea, E., Samiee, S., & Makri, K. (2019). A comparison of formative versus
reflective approaches for the measurement of electronic service quality. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 47, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2019.03.004
Tung, V. W. S., & Au, N. (2018). Exploring customer experiences with robotics in hospitality.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(7), 2680–2697. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2017-0322
Tung, V. W. S., & Law, R. (2017). The potential for tourism and hospitality experience research in
human-robot interactions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29
(10), 2498–2513. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0520
Turner, F., Merle, A., & Gotteland, D. (2020). Enhancing consumer value of the co-design
experience in mass. Journal of Business Research, 117, 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.05.052
Tussyadiah, I. (2020). A review of research into automation in tourism: Launching the annals of
tourism Research curated collection on Artificial Intelligence and robotics in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102883
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., Jung, T. H., & Tom Dieck, M. C. (2018). Virtual reality, presence, and
attitude change: empirical evidence from tourism. Tourism Management, 66, 140–154. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.003
Wang, J., Liu-lastres, B., Ritchie, B. W., & Pan, D. (2019). Risk reduction and adventure tourism
safety: an extension of the risk perception attitude framework (RPAF). Tourism Management, 74,
247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.03.012
Wen, J., Liu, X., & Yu, C. (2020). Exploring the roles of smart services in Chinese senior tourists’
travel experiences: An application of psychological reactance theory. Anatolia, 31(4), 666669.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1742750
Wirtz, J., Patterson, P. G., Kunz, W. H., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S., Patterson, P. G. (2018). Brave
new world: Service robots in the frontline world. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907–931.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2018-0119
Wykowska, A., Chaminade, T., & Cheng, G. (2016). Embodied artificial agents for understanding
human social cognition. Philosophical Transactions B, 371(1693). http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.
2015.0375
Yang, H., & Ma, J. (2020). How an epidemic outbreak impacts happiness: factors that worsen (vs.
protect) emotional well-being during the Coronavirus pandemic. Psychiatry Research, 289. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113045
Yıldırım, M., & Güler, A. (2021). Positivity explains how COVID-19 perceived risk increases death
distress and reduces happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 168(1). https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110347
Yim, M. Y., Chu, S., & Sauer, P. L. (2017). Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for
E-commerce? an interactivity and vividness perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39,
89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.04.001
Yrjölä, M., Rintamäki, T., Saarijärvi, H., Joensuu, J., & Kulkarni, G. (2019). A customer value
perspective to service experiences in restaurants. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51,
91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.030
Zeng, Z., Chen, P., & Lew, A. A. (2020). From high-touch to high-tech: COVID-19 drives robotics
adoption. Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 724–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1762118
Zhao, Y., & Bacao, F. (2020). What factors determining customer continuingly using food delivery
apps during 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic period. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 91(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102683
Zhu, Z., Liu, Y., Kapucu, N., & Peng, Z. (2020). Online media and trust in government during crisis:
the moderating role of sense of security. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50(11).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101717

AI Contactless Customer Service

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AI Contactless Customer Service

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

Examining the effects of AI contactless services on

Minglong Li, Dexiang Yin, Hailian Qiu & Billy Bai

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2021.1934932

Published online: 09 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 861

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Examining the effects of AI contactless services on customer

人工智能 (Al) 非接触式服务在COVID-19大流行期间蓬勃发展, 但其后

CONTACT Minglong Li minglong.li@connect.polyu.hk School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of

Table 1. A literature review matrix of AI services and AI contactless services.

Literature review and hypothesis formulation

The attributes of AI contactless services

Figure 1. A conceptual model of AI contactless services.

The value of perceived control

H7: Customer psychological safety has a positive influence on hedonic value.

H9: Customer psychological safety positively influences service quality.

H10: The value of perceived control positively influences service quality.

Another significant factor in terms of predicting service quality in hospitality contexts is

H11: Hedonic value positively influences service quality.

To purify the scales on the sensory properties, interactivity, and responsiveness of AI

Table 3. Descriptive characteristics of respondents (n = 316).

Overall measurement model

Table 4. Results of the measurement model.

Table 5. Discriminant validity of the measurement model.

Table 6. Results of hypothesis testing.

H6b 0.210*** Hedonic

Table 7. Results of indirect effects.

psychological safety on the relationships of interactivity (β = 0.110; t = 2.627; ES = 0.196)

Discussion and implications

As a kind of positive emotion, psychological safety can influence on distress, happiness

control. In AI contactless services, human-technology interactions represent a critical

Limitations and future research

You might also like