A Study on Automated Receptionists in a Real-World Scenario

  • Ralf WolterEmail author
  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Dalya Samur
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12092)


The commercial availability of robots and voice-operated smart devices such as Alexa or Google Home have some companies wondering whether they can replace some current human interactions by using these devices. One such area of interaction is at the reception desk. While both platforms can offer the necessary interaction features to take on the task of an automated receptionist, the question remains as to which platform actual visitors would prefer - body or no body? To this end we created a receptionist agent that can receive visitors with an appointment, presented as either an embodied robot or a disembodied smart display. The agent uses common commercial products and services, and was tested in a real-world environment with real visitors.

The results show no significant difference in visitor preference for either platform.


Human-robot interaction Embodiment Social agents Dialogue management Automated receptionist 



The authors would like to thank Joost Bosman, Edwin van Dillen and Martijn Schuts for their willing contributions to this project.


  1. 1. Inc.: Introducing echo show 5: compact smart display with alexa (2019). Accessed 12 June 2019
  2. 2.
    Baba, A., Kagehiro, T., Koshizuka, H., Togami, M., Yoshiuchi, H.: Robotics solutions opening up new service markets. Hitachi Rev. 65(9), 433 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bainbridge, W.A., Hart, J.W., Kim, E.S., Scassellati, B.: The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3(1), 41–52 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry, L.L., Wall, E.A., Carbone, L.P.: Service clues and customer assessment of the service experience: lessons from marketing. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 20(2), 43–57 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bohus, D., Rudnicky, A.I.: Sorry, I didn’t catch that!-an investigation of non-understanding errors and recovery strategies. In: 6th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breazeal, C.: Social interactions in HRI: the robot view. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C (Appl. Rev.) 34(2), 181–186 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donahue, T.J., Scheutz, M.: Investigating the effects of robot affect and embodiment on attention and natural language of human teammates. In: 2015 6th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), pp. 397–402. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunford, R., Palmer, I., Benveniste, J.: Business model replication for early and rapid internationalisation: the ING direct experience. Long Range Plan. 43(5–6), 655–674 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dutta, V.: Banking revisited: key trends reshaping banking in India. Paradigm 7(1), 103–108 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Etlinger, S., Altimeter, A.: The conversational business (2017). Accessed 14 July 2017Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hanson, D.: Commencement 2018 keynote address—David Hanson via robotic proxy Sophia (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hashimoto, T., Kobayashi, H.: Study on natural head motion in waiting state with receptionist robot SAYA that has human-like appearance. In: 2009 IEEE Workshop on Robotic Intelligence in Informationally Structured Space, pp. 93–98. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Julian, C.C., Ramaseshan, B.: The role of customer-contact personnel in the marketing of a retail bank’s services. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 22(5), 29–34 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., Belpaeme, T.: The robot who tried too hard: social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In: 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 67–74. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, K.M., Jung, Y., Kim, J., Kim, S.R.: Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: the effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human-robot interaction. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64(10), 962–973 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee, M.K., Kiesler, S., Forlizzi, J.: Receptionist or information kiosk: how do people talk with a robot? In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 31–40. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Linssen, J., Theune, M.: R3D3: the rolling receptionist robot with double Dutch dialogue. In: Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 189–190. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malhotra, R., Malhotra, D.: The impact of internet and e-commerce on the evolving business models in the financial services industry. Int. J. Electron. Bus. 4(1), 56–82 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ogawa, K., Nishio, S., Koda, K., Balistreri, G., Watanabe, T., Ishiguro, H.: Exploring the natural reaction of young and aged person with telenoid in a real world. JACIII 15(5), 592–597 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    SoftBank Robotics: Pepper (2016). Accessed 12 June 2019
  21. 21.
    Swaid, S.I., Wigand, R.T.: The effect of perceived site-to-store service quality on perceived value and loyalty intentions in multichannel retailing. Int. J. Manag. 29(3), 301 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thellman, S., Silvervarg, A., Gulz, A., Ziemke, T.: Physical vs. virtual agent embodiment and effects on social interaction. In: Traum, D., Swartout, W., Khooshabeh, P., Kopp, S., Scherer, S., Leuski, A. (eds.) IVA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10011, pp. 412–415. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tuzovic, S., Paluch, S.: Conversational commerce – a new era for service business development? In: Bruhn, M., Hadwich, K. (eds.) Service Business Development, pp. 81–100. Springer, Wiesbaden (2018). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wainer, J., Feil-Seifer, D.J., Shell, D.A., Mataric, M.J.: The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In: The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN 2006, pp. 117–122. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., Lankes, M., Tscheligi, M.: The USUS evaluation framework for human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction, AISB 2009, vol. 4, pp. 11–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., Tscheligi, M., Yoshida, E.: Addressing user experience and societal impact in a user study with a humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction, AISB 2009 (Edinburgh, 8–9 April 2009), SSAISB, pp. 150–157. Citeseer (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralf Wolter
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  • Dalya Samur
    • 3
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 2
  1. 1.Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.INGAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations