The Contextual Autonomy Principle: When and Why Social Service Robots Are Perceived as Ethical
This research study examines how service context, governance form, and social presence jointly shape consumers' ethical evaluations and intentions to use social service robots. Across three studies, the authors show that restaurant deployment generally increases perceived ethicality relative to home deployment, and that human-in-the-loop oversight is preferred in homes whereas full autonomy is viewed more favorably in restaurants under high social presence. The findings support a contextual autonomy principle, positioning perceived ethicality as a legitimacy judgment linking context and governance to adoption.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, managers, and designers of service robotics looking to understand how context and governance choices impact consumer ethical perceptions and technology adoption.
What the document contains
The paper investigates the ethical evaluation and adoption intentions of social service robots by comparing public restaurant settings and private home environments across different governance forms (full autonomy vs. human-in-the-loop oversight) and social presence levels.
The research does not provide legal or regulatory compliance guidelines, nor does it establish binding standards for robot manufacturers.
- A social service robot operating in a public restaurant context is perceived as more ethical than the same robot operating in a private home context.
- Perceived ethicality acts as a legitimacy judgment that positively predicts and mediates the effect of service context on behavioral intention to use.
- Preferences for full autonomy versus human-in-the-loop oversight are context-dependent, favoring human oversight in the home.
- High social presence strengthens the context-dependent effect of robot governance form on perceived ethicality by making the robot appear as an intentional social actor.
- Topic modeling reveals that practical utility and privacy concerns are more salient in homes, whereas dining innovation is more salient in restaurants.
· 1 Introduction · 2 Background and Theoretical Development · 3 Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Development · 4 Methodology and Study Overview · 5 Study 1—Baseline Ethicality Mechanism · 6 Study 2—Context-Dependent Governance Effects and Social Presence Boundary · 7 Study 3—Exploratory Topic-Based Mechanisms · 8 Discussion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
4/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
We therefore conceptualize this ethical dilemma as a tension between efficiency-driven automation and accountability-driven oversight
1 Introduction
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
3/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
We use perceived ethicality to refer to the consumer's judgment that the social robot operates in a manner that is appropriate, fair, respectful of personal boundaries
2.2 Perceived Ethicality
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
3/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
perceived ethicality as a judgment of whether a robot's behavior is appropriate, fair, and answerable in a given context
1 Introduction
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
2/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Transparency should be the default: firms should disclose capabilities, limitations, data practices, and motives
8.2 Managerial Implications
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
None
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
We further show that human-in-the-loop oversight is evaluated as more ethical than full autonomy in the home, whereas the reverse emerges in restaurants
ABSTRACT
screening score · 2026-10-24