Autonomous Products Make You Look Lazy!

Fabian Nindl1

Tobias Schlager2

Ashley V. Whillans3

1WU Vienna 2University of Lausanne

1

3Harvard Business School

2

Autonomous Products Make You Look Lazy!

Abstract

Autonomous products, which operate without any human intervention, are becoming

increasingly common. This research reveals an unexpected negative effect of this novel

product category: peers consider owners of such products to be less hard-working. Over the

course of five studies we provide evidence for the hypotheses that people perceive owners of

autonomous products as less hard-working than those who operate traditional (i.e., non-

autonomous) products. The effect is attenuated by highlighting the opportunity to use the

gained time for work. The results show that autonomous products can send strong signals to

their owners’ peers thereby covering the social effects of this novel product class.

3

Introduction

Recently, autonomous products (AP) have entered our daily lives and become increasingly

more popular. These products take over tasks such as cleaning, mowing the lawn, as well as

driving cars, and are will likely change our lives (Jörling et al. 2019; Rijsdijk and Hultink

2003). For instance, the autonomous vacuum cleaner Roomba of the US company iRobot

vacuums people’s houses and operates without any human input after being set-up once.

One key aspect of APs is that they free up people’s time. Specifically, APs allow people

to reduce their time spent on—typically tedious—tasks as their daily chores and allow them to

use their time for leisure activities (Leung et al. 2018; Festjens and Janiszewski 2015).

Accordingly, one of the key advantages of APs is that people would objectively have less

work to complete, in case they do not allocate the gained time to other work.

While this benefit of APs has been acknowledged (Rijsdijk and Hultink 2009;

Schweitzer et al. 2019), it is still unclear whether and how the usage of these products affects

the perceptions of peers of the owners of such products. On the one hand, delegating tasks

that are typically perceived to be less desirable can be interpreted as a sign of laziness

(Selwyn et al. 2017; Raz‐Yurovich 2014). On the other hand, allocating tasks to others can

also be considered a sign of being particularly hardworking as one might understand this a

consequence of already having to complete too much other work or that one wants to

reallocate the gained time to other work. Accordingly, the question that we seek to answer by

this research is: How will peers of an owner of an autonomous products perceive that owner?

Drawing on literature on the signaling of products (Belk 1988; Holt 1995) and the

classical theory of the leisure class (Veblen 1899/2007), we propose that using such products

will lead others to the perception that people are less hardworking, or, put differently, lazy.

However, this resides on the intuitive interpretation that people dislike work, and thus want to

4

reduce the amount they work that they have available. This effect might also be attenuated

when disclosing that users can allocate the time that the APs free up for other tasks.

Four studies support this theorizing. Our pilot study, conducted on Twitter, shows that

owners of autonomous products might be perceived as less hardworking. This reasoning is

supported by S1 showing that regarding vacuum cleaners, autonomous products can have a

detrimental effect on how hard-working a person is perceived. S2 extends these findings by

highlighting the same negative effects across different product categories. Ultimately, S3 and

S4 provide examples about how to counter negative social perceptions and under which

circumstances owners can be perceived as more hard-working.

The key result is that autonomous products can lead to negative impressions of an

owner’s peers towards the owner. Our finding contributes to the broader literature of products

as signals (Belk 1988; Gierl et al. 2010; Wang and Griscevicius 2014)—that we advance by

addressing how this new category of products affects peers’ perceptions of their owners.

Specifically, autonomous products intuitively lead to the negative judgment that their owners

are lazy. A second contribution is we extend prior work on busyness (Bellezza et al. 2016;

Yang and Hsee 2019) by revealing a key antecedent, namely, product type. However, we also

show that not all autonomous products lead to judging owners as lazy. Only products that take

away tedious tasks lead to that judgment, others have no effect. Finally, we contribute to the

literature of the usage consequences of APs. While the largest part of work on APs has

examined adoption barriers (Rijsdijk and Hultink 2003; Mani and Chouk 2017; de Bellis and

Johar 2020), or the connection with one’s identity (Leung et al. 2018), our article is one of the

first to show the social consequences of autonomous products. Besides this work, only

Schlager et al. (n.d.) have examined this area—which, becomes increasingly more important

now that more and more consumers have adopted these products (de Bellis and Johar 2020).

Smart and Autonomous Products

5

As technology progresses, products are becoming increasingly autonomous (Grewal et

al. 2017; Schmitt 2019). Autonomous products are part of the greater area of so-called smart

products—products which can operate without and commands of the user (Mani and Chouk

2017; de Bellis and Johar 2020). Research focuses on several areas such as Internet of Things

(IoT) (Aldossari and Sidorova 2018), artificial intelligence (AI) (Letheren et al. 2020), smart

homes (Marikyan et al. 2019), retailing (Roy et al. 2018), or transportation (Hancock et al.

2019). These products own unique capacities for interaction and thus create novel experiences

(Hoffman and Novak 2018a; Hoffman and Novak 2018b; Novak and Hoffman 2019).

Considering that APs take over people’s tasks, one of their key consequences is that

they free up people’s time (Schlager et al. n.d.; de Bellis et al. 2019; Leung et al. 2018;

Festjens and Janiszewski 2015). Initial articles in this domain have examined the predictors of

purchasing APs (Schweitzer et al. 2019; Leung et al. 2018), the negative and positive

consequences of APs (de Bellis and Johar 2020; Schweitzer and Van den Hende 2016;

Rijsdijk and Hultink 2003; 2009), as well as which consumer groups might benefit most of

using these products (Leung et al. 2018; Rijsdijk and Hultink 2003; 2009).

Autonomous technologies can be a threat to people’s individuality and identity. Leung

et al. (2018) showed that autonomous products may not be desirable when identity motives

drive consumption. Specifically, people who strongly identify with a particular activity (e.g.,

cooking) use the self-signaling utility of consumption by attributing consumption outcomes

internally to their own actions. Thus, people resist autonomous features when these features

hamper the attribution of identity-relevant consumption outcomes to themselves.

Individuals also fear that autonomous technologies are less able to account for their

unique characteristics and circumstances, which has been shown to drive resistance to

autonomous technologies in the medical area (Longoni, Bonezzi, and Morewedge 2019).

Besides these identity threats, research has shown that self-threats can be triggered by

autonomous technologies as well—for example, when one’s job is taken over by a human 6

worker versus a robot (Granulo, Fuchs, and Puntoni 2019). These findings represent consumer

adoption barriers, which were also highlighted by de Bellis and Johar (2019). In a retailing

context, they investigated autonomous products’ and virtual assistants’ effect on customer

journeys. The authors uncovered barriers such as perceived behavioral control, social

connectedness, and culture. In contrast, Rijsdijk and Hultink (2009) stress potential benefits

and advantages of autonomous products based on functionality, compatibility, and autonomy.

However, perceived autonomy can also lead to a decrease in customers' perceived behavioral

control and their perceived responsibility for positive outcomes (Jörling et al., 2019).

Moreover, autonomous products have the ability to improve personal time allocation

(de Bellis et al. 2019; Schlager et al. 2020). The idea that is common to most of this work is

that as APs replace tasks, they might have positive and negative consequences, depending on

the work and the personal traits of the one who gives up that work. Much less is known about

the usage consequences of Aps. To date only one article examines AP usage, and this article

has shown that APs have positive implications for people’s well-being because they free up

time (Schlager et al. n.d.). For a full overview of the literature on APs see Table 1.

In this article, we focus on another, social consequence of APs. Specifically, we

examine whether and how APs have implications for the social judgments of the user’s peers.

In other words, will utilizing APs affect how others think about the owner and user of a

product? And if so, which effects do they have?

7

Table 1: Literature on APs.

8

Reference Research design Actual usage examined (Anticipated) Key findings Domain

van den Berg and Verhoef (2016) Modelling No Automated vehicles increase capacity and decrease value of time

Net positive externalities seem more likely Transportation

Leung et al. (2018) 6 studies (correlational & experimental)

No People want to take credit for outcomes central to their identity Using AI can be tantamount to cheating Marketing

Jörling et al. (2019) 1 interview study3 experiments

No Technology’s autonomy decreases perceived control over service robot This decreases perceived responsibility for positive but not for negative outcomes Marketing

Kim et al. (2016) 1 pilot study 6 experiments

Partly Computerized helpers and digital assistants can be anthropomorphized Negative aspects of antrophormism Marketing

Rijsdijk and Hultink (2003) 1 experiment No Consumers perceive autonomous products as risky and complex Innovation

Hengstler et al. (2016) 9 case studies No Dichotomous constitution of trust in applied AI. Emphasis on symbiosis of trust in technology as well as in the innovating firm and its communication about the technology Society

Schweitzer et al. (2019) 1 survey personal interviews

No Show how consumers perceive the agency of anthropomorphised smart devices Consumers make sense of intelligent technologies (servant vs partner/friend vs. master) Marketing

Kim et al. (2019) 4 experimentsNo Anthropomorphism increases psychological warmth but decreases attitudes

(uncanniness) Competence judgments are not subject to a decrease in attitudes

Marketing

Rijsdijk and Hultink (2009) 1 experimentNo Smart products have advantages and disadvantages

Higher levels of product smartness are associated with higher levels of observability and perceived risk.

Marketing

Novak and Hoffmann (2018) (conceptual)No Derive framework for consumer–object relationships using the circumplex model of

interpersonal complementarity Framework allows to predict different types of consumer experiences

Marketing / General science

Hoffmann and Novak (2018) (conceptual) No Conceptual development of object experience in the Internet of Things (IoT) Marketing

Parasuraman et al (2000) (conceptual) No Derivation of functions automation can be applied to (e.g., information acquisition and analysis) Ergonomics

de Bellis et al. (2019) (conceptual) No Psychological hurdles for the adoption of autonomous products are identified (as lack of control) Marketing

THIS WORK 4 experiments Yes Owners of autonomous products can either be perceived to be industrious or lazy Marketing

The effect of Autonomous Products on Social Perceptions

We conceptualize autonomous products (AP) as products that take over mundane tasks

(Parasuraman et al. 2000) and that consumers only have to once initially set-up APs and then

do not have to intervene anymore. Accordingly, one of the main arguments for autonomous

products is that less desirable tasks can be outsourced and obtained additional time can be

used for more important tasks (de Bellis et al. 2019). More importantly, the tasks that APs

take over are typically tedious, given that they are outsourced. But how does outsourcing of

tedious tasks affect peers’ perceptions of the owners of APs?

Leisure, work, and busyness

Philosophers such as stoics of ancient Greece and Rome proposed a disdain for work and

craftsmanship (Gamst 1995). This thinking also affected later thinkers such as Veblen (1899),

who coined the theory of the leisure class. According to this theory, the elite society is not

defined by its ability to lead, create, or innovate but by their conspicuous wastefulness—

characterized by socially visible expenditures of effort, time, and money.

Although studies support the reasoning that the amount of work and being poor is

correlated with each other in the 19th century (Economist 2014; Voth 2001), newer studies

question this relationship. The underlying reason for this change seems to be that busyness—

characterized by working long hours (mostly paid) without a lot of or any free time on the

dimensions of quantity, speed, and meaning—has become a status symbol (Belezza et al.

2016). Specifically, elements that determine how hard-working people are, are the number of

tasks they perform (Gershuny 2005), how fast they perform these tasks (Bellezza et al. 2016),

and the meaning that is associated with these tasks (Wilcox et al. 2016).

Darier (1998) highlighted the desire to experience myriads of cultural activities and

therefore stressed that being busy and being fast is interpreted as a “full and valued life”.

Different behaviors in different contexts can lead to people being perceived as lazy. Most 9

people agree that it is better to appear industrious than lazy, however, people will quickly

engage in social judgement to label someone as lazy (Kervyn, Judd, and Yzerbyt 2009).

APs and their consequences for impression management

Research on impression management shows that people who make a lot of use of supplication

in groups (i.e., playing dumb and asking for help) are generally perceived as lazy (Turnley

and Bolino 2001). But not just behaviors, also stereotypes can lead to unfavorable attributions

by others (Reyna 2000; Westberg, Reid, and Kopanidis 2020). People will even use simple

heuristics such as levels of income to infer if certain groups are lazy or not (Kim 1998).

Therefore, behaviors, products, or socioeconomic information have social

implications. An extensive stream of research deals with product and identity signaling, which

can take on a personal (perspective of owners) and social perspective (perspective of peers)

(Belk 1988). It shows that products and brands take on an important role in communicating a

person’s identity to themselves and additionally to others (Fournier 1998; Richins 1994).

Furthermore, people often make use of a projective technique by taking on the perspective of

someone else to interpret their own choices (Bem 1972).

Products have the ability to communicate symbolic meanings about their owners on

different dimensions such as branding (Aaker 1997) or price (Sengupta, Dahl, and Gorn

2002). Prior research demonstrates that individual drives for differentiation exist (Snyder and

Fromkin 1977; Ariely and Levav 2000) due to their need for uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin

1980). Consumers seem to choose products to effectively communicate desired identities

(Berger and Heath 2007). They engage in impression management, which can be defined as a

process to attempt to influence the perception of other people about a person (Tedeschi 1981).

Research has shown that effective impression management leads to positive social

interactions (Chen, Shechter, and Chaiken 1996). Additionally, it was found that social

10

concerns affect purchasing behavior and lead to the purchases of more expensive, high-quality

items, and to a reduction of negative feelings (Dahl, Manchanda, and Argo 2001).

Social forces are central to understanding consumers. Consumers are not only

influenced by others before (Etkin and Sela 2016) during shopping (Argo 2020; Argo et al.

2005; Kwon et al. 2016; Luck and Benkenstein 2012, 2014, 2015), but they can also be

negatively by others’ judgements (Rathner and Kahn 2002; White and Dahl 2006). Social

utility can lead to conformity or individuality and highlights that it has a tremendous influence

on behavior (McIntyre and Miller 1992; Thompson and Norton 2011).

Some researchers argue that this phenomenon affects distant peers more than close

peers, who typically have a more profound knowledge about the judged individual (Hamilton

et al. 2020). This hints at simple heuristics for inferences and the usage of stereotypes when

consumers are judged by others (Westberg, Reid, and Kopanidis 2020). Chaney, Sanchez, and

Maimon (2019) argue that distant peers especially influence altruistic and pro-social motives.

Research has demonstrated that private consumption differs from public consumption when it

comes to status (Berger and Ward 2010; Thompson and Norton 2011; Wang and Griskevicius

2014). Products characterized by many features, even if they are not even used, can

beneficially signal wealth, technological skills, and openness to new experiences to peers

(Thompson and Norton 2011). Consumers frequently engage in identity signaling when they,

for instance, want to be perceived as virtuous and therefore highlight their environmentally

responsible consumption practices (Griskevicius, Tyber, and Van den Bergh 2010).

As a result, products do not only have a personal but also a social effect. In fact, prior

work has shown that the products people purchase (e.g., food, beauty products, green

products) and personal environments (e.g., work, personal living spaces) signal information

about the owner of that product, their personalities, values, and habits of their owners

(Burroughs, Drews, and Hallman 1991; Gosling et al. 2002; Thompson and Norton 2011).

11

Early research has demonstrated that peers judge people based on their product

purchases (Haire 1950). Observers hold positive as well as negative thoughts of certain

products and transfer these inferences onto the purchaser (Haire 1950; Dahl et al. 2005).

Work by Baran et al. (1989) and Shavitt and Nelson (1999) nurtures the assumption that

people may use information about product purchases to infer characteristics of others.

Moreover, research shows that individuals are aware of the social dangers of a limited

range of favorite products, suggesting that low variety seeking might have a negative

impression on others, in being evaluated as boring or narrow-minded (Ariely and Levav 2000;

Ratner and Kahn 2002). The inferences people make about their peers based on their product

choice goes beyond simple characteristic as it can even have an effect on social attractiveness

(Stasiuk et al. 2018). Stasiuk et al. (2018) argue that people can appear more interesting and

attractive based on previous product purchases. More closely connected to our paper,

Thompson and Norton (2011) show that technology-based products contain social utility—

and might enhance the status of the owner of that product. They also show that the

anticipation of using those products may have a detrimental effect on social utility. Similarly,

people might be perceived as lazy when they resort to technology: When they face difficult

walking conditions, they will choose driving (Loukopoulos and Gärling 2005).

The literature on identity signaling and impression management, along with the fact that

outsourcing some tasks (e.g., walking) to services is suggestive of the idea that APs will lead

to peers judging the owners of APs as ‘lazy.’ APs are different from other technological

products as they do not require their owners to operate them actively. In fact, they are smart

and take over mundane tasks and create free time (Leung et al. 2018; Festjens and

Janiszewski 2015) with uncertain consequences for the social evaluation of their owners.

Considering this prior evidence on using products as a signal to one’s peers, we propose that

displaying the usage of such products systematically alters people’s social perceptions.

12

Autonomous products free up people’s time for other tasks by taking over people’s

daily chores (Leung et al. 2018; Festjens and Janiszewski 2015). Without any further

information on why consumers delegate those tasks, one should assume that owners will

therefore complete less work. However, delegating tasks that are typically perceived to be less

desirable (or even undesirable) can be interpreted as a sign of being hardworking (Selwyn et

al. 2017; Raz‐Yurovich 2014). Accordingly, we propose that the peers of users of such

products will perceive them to be less hardworking, or even lazy.

While early work (Veblen 1899/2007) proposed that not working “becomes the

conventional mark of superior pecuniary achievement” (p. 30), not working may as well be

perceived negatively. Drawing on prior studies examining social perceptions of hard work and

busyness (Burke and Ng 2007; Bellezza et al. 2016; Yang and Hsee 2019), we hypothesize

that owning autonomous products can have a significant effect on how a person is perceived

by their peers. While people may understand owners of autonomous products as particularly

busy, they might also construe them as those who are simply not motivated to do their daily

chores. This suggests that other people’s perceptions of owners of autonomous products

depends on several moderators.

As autonomous products create time windfalls, consumers face the choice of how to use

this time. They can either be productive and choose to allocate their additional gained time for

more pressing tasks or they can engage in leisure and use their time to relax.

Regarding leisure, researchers distinguish between idleness and active leisure

engagement (Yang and Hsee 2019). Whereas the former describes a state of inactivity, the

latter is characterized by the voluntary use of time on leisure entertainment or relaxation

(Yang and Hsee 2019). In accordance with the Theory of the Leisure Class (Veblen 1899)

idleness or lavish consumption of time can display high status (Shin and Back 2020). In

contrast, owners of autonomous products who use their gained time to be idle might be

perceived as lazy given that their motive is “to do nothing”, which is labeled as passive leisure 13

(Holder, Coleman, and Sehn 2009). Such perceptions may undermine people’s social status

and be detrimental for their perception. Therefore, the social perception of being either time

pressured and busy or idle/lazy is expected to have a significant effect on perceived success.

H1a: Owning autonomous products lead to more inferences of being less hard working

than owning traditional products that perform the same task.

H1b: Owning autonomous products lead to more inferences of being pressed for time

than owning traditional products that perform the same task.

Busyness has also been understood as a subjective state determined by the number of

tasks individuals have to perform (Gershuny 2005). Moreover, people dread idleness and

desire busyness in search of meaning and motivation in their lives (Ariely, Kamenica, and

Prelec 2008; Hsee, Yang, and Wang 2010; Keinan and Kivetz 2011; Wilcox et al. 2016).

Economists also propose an opposing “substitution effect,” where higher wages increase

the supply of labor because the opportunity cost of consuming leisure becomes higher.

Consistent with this view, work hours have increased steadily among highly educated and

highly paid workers and have remained flat for less skilled employees (Kuhn and Lozano

2008), and a common increase in leisure time has been driven by less educated people

working less than before (Aguiar and Hurst 2006).

H2: Inferences of being less hard working undermines the status of the owner of an

autonomous product.

We propose that how owners use the time that they gain from operating their APs is a

key moderator of how others perceive their time. On the one hand, and as explained above,

people may make the intuitive assumption that owners have purchased and use APs for 14

gaining time that they allocate for leisure. However, recent research has found that in

particular extremely busy consumers purchase APs, oftentimes to save time. In case owners of

APs would allocate the time such that they can only increase their work-load, they should also

be perceived to be more hard-working than those who own a traditional product.

H3: The effect of autonomous products on inferences of being less hard working is

attenuated by information on what the time is spent.

Studies

We propose that people perceive owners of autonomous products as less hard working than

those who operate traditional products. Five studies (one that uses data of Twitter, and the rest

were conducted via the platform CloudResearch and using US respondents in 2019 and 2020)

provide evidence in support of this hypothesis.

The pilot study uses large scale data from Twitter (N = 165,492) to show that people

respond to tweets on autonomous product with less words related to work compared to tweets

on their traditional counterparts (H1). Study 1 was a between-subjects experiment that showed

that, independent of the owner’s gender, consumers rate owners of APs to be lazier than

owners of traditional products (H1). Study 2 corroborates this finding and shows that across

different product categories (i.e., vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers) people rate owners of

APs to be lazier than owners of traditional counterparts (H1). Studies 3 and 4 then show that

if owners allocate the time that they gain from operating APs to work (instead of the intuitive

assumption: to leisure), people do not judge them to be lazier than their counterparts that own

traditional products (H3). Study 4 also shows that the effect also has more general

consequences for owners of autonomous products given that the perceived laziness translates

into perceptions of status (H2).

Pilot Study

15

The objective of this pilot study was to provide an initial evidence on whether people perceive

owners of autonomous products to be less hard working than owners of traditional products.

Design and procedure

We collected 52,859 tweets related to autonomous and traditional products of the same

product category (i.e., vacuum cleaners; we used the 40 most common products in each

category as keywords to search for; example: “Roomba”; see full list of search words in

Appendix) over a two-month period (January-February 2020). As many of the tweets were

posted by companies that advertise their products or communicate the technical details of

their products, we limited the tweets to those that did not include a company website.

Accordingly, the resulting data set only included tweets that were likely posted by private

persons. To get people’s responses to the tweets, we scraped all responses to these initial

tweets (excluding those from the original author), which resulted in a total of 165,492

responses to the initial 52,859 tweets.

Measurement

After that, we used the Harvard inquirer dictionary, which automatically coded

specific words included in tweets. We focused on the category work, which coded words

related to work. To construct a measure of how common work-related words were, we

divided by the number of words in each of the tweets, standardizing the length of the tweets.

Results

A t-test demonstrated that responses to tweets that included autonomous products

included significantly fewer words related to work than those related to traditional products

(MAP = 0.27, MTrad = 0.58; t(163,959) = 8.99, Cohens d = 0.33). Thus, people responded to

owners of APs with fewer work-related words than to owners of traditional products.

Discussion

16

This pilot study provided initial evidence using a large-scale data set from Twitter that

people might perceived owners of autonomous products to be less hardworking (H1). This

study is suggestive that people’s perceptions of owners of APs differ from those of traditional

products. The next studies use designs that allow for a causal assessment of this hypothesis.

Pilot Study 2

The objective of this second pilot study was to substantiate the evidence of the pilot study in a

more controlled environment. Thus, it again tested people’s responses to owners of

autonomous products.

Design and procedure

We used the product descriptions of four different APs and their traditional

counterparts (i.e., a lawn mower, a cooking machine, a wet cleaner, and a vacuum cleaner).

The products were chosen as they are the most common APs on the market (see the products

and descriptions in the Appendix). Participants first had to indicate the name of a work

colleague. Next, they were instructed to imagine their work colleague had bought a new

product and told them about this purchase. We randomly assigned participants to one of the

four APs or one of the four traditional products. Participants then wrote two sentences about

how they perceived their work colleague and indicated their demographics.

Measurement

A coder received instructions on how to code the open text answers of participants and

did not receive any information about whether the texts were related to APs or traditional

products. We coded the focal constructs of our study as follows: Laziness was coded by

counting all words synonymous for ‘lazy’ on a scale from 0 (no words related to laziness were

mentioned) to 3 (a lot of related words were mentioned). We did the same for their

counterpart perceptions of hard work. We subtracted both from each other to obtain a bipolar

17

scale -3 (hard work) to +3 (lazy). We also constructed a measure for our second mediator,

time pressure (0 = no time pressure, 3 = a lot of time pressure).

Moreover, we coded several constructs that could serve as alternative explanations,

specifically, convenience (0 = not convenient at all, 3 = very convenient) and smart (0 = not

smart at all, 3 = very smart).

Results

Laziness. A t-test demonstrated that responses to tweets that included autonomous

products included significantly more words related to laziness than those related to traditional

products (t(501) = 3.108, p = 0.002, Cohens d = 0.277, MAP = 0.028, SD = 0.423, MTrad = -

0.088, SD = 0.410). Thus, people perceived their work colleagues to be lazier when they

imagined that they purchased an AP compared to those who purchased a traditional product.

Time pressure. A t-test demonstrated that responses to tweets that included

autonomous products included significantly more words related to time pressure than those

related to traditional products (t(501) = 2.580, p = 0.01, Cohens d = 0.230, MAP = 0.083, SD =

0.415, MTrad = 0.012, SD = 0.141). Thus, people perceived their work colleagues to be more

under time pressure when they imagined that they purchased an AP compared to those who

purchased a traditional product.

Convenience. A t-test demonstrated that responses to tweets that included autonomous

products did not use significantly more or less words related to convenience than those related

to traditional products (t(501) = -0.311, p = 0.756, Cohens d = -0.028, MAP = 0.020, SD =

0.140, MTrad = 0.024, SD = 0.153). Thus, people perceived their work colleagues to equally

convenient when they imagined that they purchased an AP compared to those who purchased

a traditional product.

Smartness. A t-test demonstrated that participants did not perceive owners of APs to

be smarter than owners of traditional products (t(501) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohens d = 0.034,

18

MAP = 0.103, SD = 0.364, MTrad = 0.092, SD = 0.316). Thus, people perceived their work

colleagues to equally smart when they imagined that they purchased an AP compared to those

who purchased a traditional product.

Discussion

While participants perceived their work colleagues to be lazier and more pressed for

time when they imagined them owning an AP (vs. a traditional product; H1a, H1b), there

were no differences in terms of how convenient or smart they perceived them to be. The next

studies all use designs that allow for a causal assessment of this hypothesis.

Study 1

The objective of Study 1 was to provide an initial causal evaluation of whether people

evaluated owners of APs to be lazier than owners of traditional products.

Design and procedure

A total of 326 respondents (MAge = 38.30, SDAge = 11.37; 49% female) was recruited

from the online platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and completed the study in

exchange for monetary compensation. We chose a vacuum cleaner as product as traditional as

well as autonomous types exist in this category. Moreover, this product is one of the most

prevalent autonomous products and, for instance, about 15% of the Swiss population

considers a purchase within the next years (Zimmermann et al. 2020). Moreover, autonomous

vacuum cleaners complete a tedious everyday task that most of the people have to complete

regularly, i.e., vacuum cleaning. Thus, we assumed that participants should not only be easily

capable to imagine this task, which makes it likely that the scenario-based study (as described

below) can be well completed, and also ensures that this product satisfies testing our

hypothesis that outsourcing tedious tasks to APs leads to perceptions of laziness.

19

Participants were assigned to one of four conditions of the 2 (product type:

autonomous vs. traditional) × 2 (owner gender: male vs. female) between-subjects

experimental design. We constructed profiles of the owners, which we called Jodie (i.e., user

gender: female) or Joey (user gender: male) that were presented to either have just bought an

autonomous or traditional vacuum cleaner of the same brand (i.e., Dyson). Those profiles

included images of the user and the product as well as short description of both.

Measurement

Participants used the three-item locus of control scale (“Cleaning occurred because of

something [JODIE/JOEY] did”, “Cleaning was caused by [JODIE/JOEY]”, “Cleaning was

due to the behavior of JODIE/JOEY”, 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”; α =

0.90; (Wagner et al. 2009) as manipulation check as well as a one-item scale of perceptions of

hard-work (1 = “works hard and continuously” – 7 = “works little and not more than

required”; Gräf and Unkelbach 2016). In addition we asked a four-item scale for time pressure

(DeVoe and Pfeffer 2011; “Joey” “seems pressed for time,” “seems rushed,” “seems stressed

out,” “seems like he does not have enough time,” ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 =

“strongly agree”; α = 0.937).

Results

Manipulation check. A two-way ANOVA showed that the manipulation was

successful as the significant effect of APs on the manipulation check showed (MAP_Female =

5.50, SD = 1.285, MAP_Male = 5.74, SD = 1.13, MTrad_Female = 6.24, SD = 1.76, MTrad_Male = 6.02, SD

= 1.10; F(1,322) = 16.57, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.049). Thus, the manipulation worked as intended.

Laziness. Moreover, a two-way ANOVA showed that the AP conditions (MAP_Female =

5.02, SD = 1.53, MAP_Male = 4.53, SD = 1.73, MTrad_Female = 5.35, SD = 1.60, MTrad_Male = 5.07, SD

= 1.65; F(1,322) = 5.80, p = 0.017, ηp2 = 0.018), and the user gender manipulation (F(1,322) =

4.57, p = 0.033, ηp2 = 0.014), but not the interaction between both factors (F(1,322) = 0.34, p

20

= 0.56, ηp2 = 0.001) affected whether people were perceived to be hard working. Thus, the

APs led to perceptions of laziness.

Time pressure. Moreover, a two-way ANOVA showed that the AP conditions

(MAP_Female = 4.01, SD = 1.65, MAP_Male = 4.49, SD = 1.61, MTrad_Female = 3.78, SD = 1.65, MTrad_Male

= 4.26, SD = 1.60; F(1,322) = 1.64, p = 0.20, ηp2 = 0.005) had no effect on time pressure.

However, the user gender manipulation (F(1,322) = 7.03, p = 0.008, ηp2 = 0.021) had an

effect. The interaction between both factors was non-significant (F(1,322) = 0.00, p = 0.99,

ηp2 = 0.000). Thus, counter to our hypothesis, APs did not lead to impressions of time

pressure, while males were perceived to be more under time pressure than women.

Discussion

This study provided evidence that displaying autonomous products has a detrimental

effect on people’s perception of how lazy a person is (H1a). However, while directionally

consistent with our hypothesis, APs had no effect on perceptions of time pressure.

We also found an unexpected effect of owner gender on time pressure (i.e., the female

person was perceived to be less pressed for time). This effect might be caused by our

manipulation which displayed the female person (“Jodie”) with a smile while the male person

was showing less of that positive emotion. Thus, in the following studies, we solely use

stimuli that did not show any emotions.

Study 2

Study 2 was designed to generalize across different product categories. Next to

vacuum-cleaners, lawn mowers were introduced as an additional product category. A total of

293 respondents (MAge = 37.77, SDAge = 11.85; 47% female) recruited from an online panel

completed the study in exchange for monetary compensation. We chose lawn mowers as

additional product category due to its popular usage frequency and high acceptance rates. 21

Design and procedure

Participants were invited to participate in a 2 (product type: autonomous vs.

traditional) × 2 (product category: vacuum-cleaner vs. lawn mower) between subject

experiment, unaware of the experimental setting and were randomly assigned to one of the

four conditions. As in Study 1, we constructed profiles of the owners. In contrasts to Study 1,

only male product owners were presented to either use a traditional or autonomous vacuum

cleaner or lawn mower. Again, those profiles included images of the user and the product as

well as a short description of both.

Measurement

Participants responded to the same scales as in Study 1 for locus of control (α = 0.929)

and laziness, and time pressure (α = 0.947).

Results

Manipulation check. A two-way ANOVA showed that the manipulation was

successful as the significant effect of autonomous products on the manipulation check showed

(F(3,289) = 44.14, p < 0.001; MAP_Vac = 3.47, SD = 1.43, MTrad_Vac = 2.18, SD = 0.90, MAP_Lawn =

2.98, SD = 1.26, MTrad_Lawn = 2.43, SD = 1.11). Thus, the manipulation worked as intended.

Laziness. A two-way ANOVA on the perception of hard-work showed a non-

significant interaction effect (F(1,289) = 2.80, p =.10, ηp2 = 0.010, MAP_Vac = 4.69 , SD = 1.38,

MTrad_Vac = 4.86, SD = 1.41, MAP_Lawn = 4.49, SD = 1.26, MTrad_Lawn = 5.20, SD = 1.39), a non-

significant effect of product category (F(1,289) = 0.27, p = 0.60, ηp2 = 0.001), but a main

effect of product type (F(1,289) = 7.60, p = 0.006, ηp2 = 0.026) showing that people were

perceived to be less hard working when they use APs.

Time pressure. A two-way ANOVA on the perception of time pressure showed a non-

significant interaction effect (F(1,289) = 0.08, p =.77, ηp2 = 0.000, MAP_Vac = 3.34, SD = 1.35,

MTrad_Vac = 2.70, SD = 1.10, MAP_Lawn = 3.37, SD = 1.58, MTrad_Lawn = 2.82, SD = 1.44), a non-22

significant effect of product category (F(1,289) = 0.22, p = 0.64, ηp2 = 0.001), but a main

effect of product type (F(1,289) = 13.36, p = 0.0003, ηp2 = 0.044) showing that people were

perceived to be more pressed for time when they owned APs.

Discussion

Study 2 corroborates Study 1 by showing that the negative effect of autonomous

products on how hardworking people are perceived extends across different product

categories (i.e., vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers).

Study 3

The objective of Study 3 is to provide insight into how one can prevent the negative effects of

autonomous products on perceptions of hardworking. This study uses a realistic configuration

of the profiles, i.e., displaying the profiles as on the social media platform Facebook.

Design and procedure

A total of 491 respondents (MAge = 41.73 years, SDAge = 12.52; 52% female) recruited

from an online panel completed the study in exchange for monetary compensation.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions of the 2 (product: autonomous

vs. traditional) × 2 (time use: work vs. relax) between-subjects experimental design.

Measurement

Participants answered the same scale of their perceptions of hard working as in the

previous studies. We again coded participants’ open texts for work-related words to get a

manipulation check of the time use. In addition, we asked multi-item scales for perceptions of

hardworking (Gräf and Unkelbach 2016; De Cooman 2009; α = 0.97), success (Gattiker and

Larwood 1986; α = 0.90), time pressure (α = 0.96). This allowed us to obtain a more

extensive assessment of how people would perceive owners of autonomous products. All

23

items were anchored in 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”. Finally, we asked a

question of how many hours participants thought that the person described in the profile

worked (ranging from 1 to 14).

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis. First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (see

Appendix for correlation table). The CFI was 0.984, the TLI was 0.980, the RMSEA was

0.060and thus reached acceptable thresholds (Bagozzi and Yi 2012). The AVE of time

pressure was 0.859 and of hardworking 0.787. As their square root (time pressure: 0.927;

hardworking: 0.887) exceeded the correlation (r = 0.243) between the other construct, the

discrimant validity was confirmed (Fornell and Lacker 1991).

Manipulation check. The manipulation checks revealed that products had a significant

effect on locus of control (F(3,488) = 61.93, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.113, MAP_Work = 4.82, SD =

1.76, MTrad_Work = 5.58, SD = 1.48, MAP_leisure = 4.68, SD = 1.61, MTrad_Leisure = 6.04, SD = 1.02),

and that time use had a significant effect on (F(3,488) = 118.05, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.487,

MAP_Work = 1.14, SD = 1.60, MTrad_Work = 1.30, SD = 1.45, MAP_leisure = 0.43, SD = 1.58, MTrad_Leisure

= 0.34, SD = 1.40). Thus, the manipulations worked as intended.

Laziness. A two-way ANOVA on our measures of perception of hard work showed a

significant interaction on the multi-item scale (F(3,488) = 59.9, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.037,

MAP_Work = 5.06, SD = 1.71, MTrad_Work = 5.51, SD = 1.66, MAP_leisure = 2.74, SD = 1.48, MTrad_Leisure

= 4.45, SD = 1.65). The effect of product type (F(3,488) = 59.9, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.109) and

time use were significant (F(3,488) = 130.3, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.211). The contrast between the

work conditions was significant (B = 0.447, t = 2.16, p = 0.032). Thus, time use significantly

attenuated the effects of autonomous products on perceived laziness.

Multi-item scale hardworking. A two-way ANOVA on our measures of perception of

hard work showed a significant interaction on the multi-item scale (F(3,488) = 12.2, p <

24

0.001, ηp2 = 0.024, MAP_Work = 5.62, SD = 0.977, MTrad_Work = 5.82, SD = 0.976, MAP_leisure = 4.42,

SD = 1.40, MTrad_Leisure = 5.32, SD = 1.06). The effect of product type (F(3,488) = 33.1, p <

0.001, ηp2 = 0.064) and time use were significant (F(3,488) = 69.2, p < 0.001, ηp

2 = 0.124).

The contrast between the work conditions was non-significant (t = 1.40, p = 0.01). The

previously scale yielded the same results.

Time pressure. A two-way ANOVA on perceived time pressure showed that the

interaction between product and time use was significant (F(3,488) = 10.8, p = 0.001, ηp2 =

0.022, MAP_Work = 4.60, SD = 1.54, MTrad_Work = 3.78, SD = 1.83, MAP_leisure = 2.38, SD = 1.54,

MTrad_Leisure = 2.51, SD = 1.56), just as time use (F(3,488) = 140.5, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.224).

Product type had no effect on perceived success (F(3,488) = 3.8, p = 0.05, ηp2 = 0.008).

Perceptions of successfulness. Another two-way ANOVA on perceptions of

successfulness showed that the interaction between product and time use was significant

(F(3,488) = 6.15, p = 0.01, ηp2 = 0.012, MAP_Work = 5.42, SD = 0.858, MTrad_Work = 5.32, SD =

0.874, MAP_leisure = 4.93, SD = 1.005, MTrad_Leisure = 5.25, SD = 0.935), just as time use (F(3,488)

= 10.81, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.022). Product had no effect on perceived success (F(3,488) = 1.99,

p = 0.16, ηp2 = 0.004). The contrast between the work conditions was non-significant (B = -

0.098, t = -0.83, p = 0.40), but the contrast between the leisure conditions was signficant (B =

0.314, t = 2.67, p = 0.001). Thus, APs only decreased perceptions successfulness when the

time was used for leisure, but not for work.

Estimated time worked. A final two-way ANOVA on the time worked showed that the

interaction between product and time use was significant (F(3,488) = 11.42, p < 0.001, ηp2 =

0.023, MAP_Work = 7.58, SD = 2.00, MTrad_Work = 6.73, SD = 2.84, MAP_leisure = 3.85, SD = 3.21,

MTrad_Leisure = 4.64, SD = 2.50), just as time use (F(3,488) = 142.13, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.226).

Product had no effect on perceived success (F(3,488) = 0.08, p = 0.78, ηp2 = 0.000). The

contrast between the work conditions was significant such that people thought that the profile

that used the autonomous product worked more hours than the one with the traditional 25

product (B = 0.847, t = -2.47, p = 0.01). This is important given that perceptions of hard work

were pointing into the opposite direction, meaning that even though people perceive that

owners of autonomous products work longer hours, they are less hard working (see Fig. 1).

Figs. 1: The effect of autonomous products and time use on (A) perceptions of hard working,

(B) time pressure, (C) perceptions of hours worked, and (D) perceptions of success.

A B

C D

26

A moderated mediation analysis (Preacher and Hayes 2008; model 7; Nbootstraps =

10,000) using product type as independent variable, time pressure and perceptions of hard

working as mediators, time use as moderator and perceived successfulness as dependent

variable showed that the mediated moderation worked on both constructs.

Specifically, the analysis revealed that time use moderated the effect of product via

perceptions of hard work on perceived success (index of moderated mediation: B = -0.455, SE

= 0.1329, CI95 = [-0.713; -0.193]). The indirect effect of autonomous products via

perceptions of hard working was significant for the time use leisure conditions (B = 0.585, SE

= 0.103, CI95 = [0.386; 0.791]), but non-significant for the time use work conditions (B =

0.129, SE = 0.082, CI95 = [-0.023; 0.283]).

The analysis also revealed that time use moderated the effect of product via time

pressure on perceived success (index of moderated mediation: B = 0.069, SE = 0.024, CI95 =

[0.025; 0.124]). The indirect effect of autonomous products via perceptions of hard working

was non-significant for the time use leisure conditions (B = -0.010, SE = 0.014, CI95 = [-

0.040; 0.018]), but significant for the time use work conditions (B = 0.059, SE = 0.019, CI95

= [0.026; 0.101]). The moderated mediation via both constructs was significant (see Fig. 2).

27

Fig. 2: The effect of autonomous products via perceptions of laziness and perceptions of time

pressure on perceptions of success is moderated by time use.

Discussion

Using time for leisure intensifies the effects autonomous products on perceptions of

hard working and leads to a negative effect on success.

Study 4

The objective of Study 4 was to show a critical moderator of the effect of autonomous

products on laziness as well as time pressure. Specifically, we hypothesize in according with

the theory of the leisure class that outsourcing fun tasks should lead to even more inferences

of being lazy but also as being under time pressure than delegating tedious tasks.

Design and procedure

A total of 993 respondents (MAge = 39.9, SDAge = 13.0; 50.3% female) was recruited

from the online platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants were randomly

assigned to one of four conditions of the 2 (product: autonomous vs. traditional) × 2 (replaced

activity: fun vs. tedious) between-subjects experimental design.

28

To manipulate the extent to which the replaced activity was perceived to be fun (vs.

tedious) we first asked all participants whether they could name a friend that really dislikes

vacuum cleaning, but that really likes cooking. Next, we introduced autonomous products to

all participants. Then, we asked participants to image that their friend, his / her name was

displayed, purchased either a vacuum cleaner (tedious activity condition) or a cooking

machine (fun activity conditions). For the tedious condition we again used the same stimuli as

in the previous studies. For the fun condition we used a cooking machine and a mixer. For the

latter, we highlighted that participants would still have to do the work while for the former we

highlighted that the product would operate autonomously.

After that, respondents answered to the same questions for locus of control (α = 0.93),

laziness, hard work (α = 0.96), time pressure (α = 0.94), and perceived success (α = 0.94) as

in Study 3. At the end of the survey, respondents answered two question as manipulation

check that asked for the extent to which they and their friend liked the respective activity

(“Please rate the following household activity based on the extent to which [name friend]

considers it fun or work: [vacuum cleaning / cooking]”, “Please rate the following household

activity based on the extent to which you consider it fun or work: [vacuum cleaning /

cooking]”, 0 = “work” to 100 = “fun”; α = 0.74).

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis. First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (see

Appendix for correlation table). The CFI was 0.962, the TLI was 0.954, the RMSEA was

0.087 and thus reached acceptable thresholds (Bagozzi and Yi 2012). The AVE of time

pressure was 0.805 and of hardworking 0.740. As their square root (time pressure: 0.897;

hardworking: 0.860) exceeded the correlation (r = -0.003) between the other construct, the

discriminant validity was confirmed (Fornell and Lacker 1991).

29

Manipulation check. The manipulation checks revealed that product had a significant

effect on locus of control (F(3,989) = 78.2, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.073, MAP_Tedious = 4.29, MTrad_Tedious

= 5.23, MAP_Fun = 4.83, MTrad_Fun = 1.21), and that replaced activity had a significant effect on

perceived fun (F(3,989) = 447.66, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.312, MAP_Tedious = 28.4, MTrad_Tedious = 31.6,

MAP_Fun = 59.4, MTrad_Fun = 63.1). Thus, the results showed that the manipulations worked as

intended.

Laziness. A two-way ANOVA on our measures of perception of hard work showed a

significant interaction on the single scale (F(3,989) = 3.92, p = 0.04, ηp2 = 0.004, MAP_Tedious =

4.35, SD = 1.82, MTrad_Tedious = 3.93, SD = 3.93, MAP_Fun = 4.22, SD = 1.79, MTrad_Fun = 3.35, SD =

1.81). The effect of product type (F(3,989) = 31.28, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.31) and replaced

activity were significant (F(3,989) = 9.30, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.01). The contrast between the

tedious conditions (t = 2.55, p = 0.01) as well as the fun conditions was significant (t = 5.40, p

< 0.001). Thus, people who outsource fun work are perceived to be particularly lazy.

Hard working. A two-way ANOVA on our measures of perception of hard work

showed a marginally significant interaction on the multi-item scale (F(3,989) = 3.42, p = 0.09,

ηp2 = 0.003, MAP_Tedious = 4.72, SD = 1.34, MTrad_Tedious = 4.93, SD = 1.15, MAP_Fun = 4.77, SD =

1.30, MTrad_Fun = 5.26, SD = 1.07). The effect of product type (F(3,989) = 20.00, p < 0.001, ηp2

= 0.020) and replaced activity were significant (F(3,989) = 5.60, p = 0.018, ηp2 = 0.006). The

contrast between the tedious conditions was marginally significant (t = 1.85, p = 0.065) and

the contrast between the fun conditions was significant (t = 4.51, p < 0.001). Thus, people

who outsource fun work are perceived to be particularly lazy.

Time pressure. A two-way ANOVA on our measures of perceived time pressure

showed a significant interaction (F(3,989) = 9.90, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.010, MAP_Tedious = 4.08, SD

= 1.58, MTrad_Tedious = 3.84, SD = 1.47, MAP_Fun = 4.31, SD = 1.54, MTrad_Fun = 3.44, SD = 1.63).

The effect of product type was significant (F(3,989) = 31.81, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.031), but not

the effect of replaced activity (F(3,989) = 0.64, p = 0.018, ηp2 = 0.001). The contrast between

30

the tedious conditions was marginally significant (t = 1.73, p = 0.085) and the contrast

between the fun conditions was highly significant (t = 6.23, p < 0.001). Thus, people who

outsource fun work are perceived to be particularly pressed for time.

Perceptions of success. A two-way ANOVA on perceived success showed a

significant interaction (F(3,989) = 4.03, p = 0.045, ηp2 = 0.004, MAP_Tedious = 4.97, SD = 1.09,

MTrad_Tedious = 5.05, SD = 0.91, MAP_Fun = 5.00, SD = 1.01, MTrad_Fun = 5.33, SD = 0.92). The effect

of product type (F(3,989) = 10.53, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.011), as well as the effect of replaced

activity (F(3,989) = 6.12, p = 0.014, ηp2 = 0.006) were significant. The contrast between the

tedious conditions was non-significant (t = 0.87, p = 0.38) and the contrast between the fun

conditions was highly significant (t = 3.75, p < 0.001). Thus, people who outsource fun work

are perceived to be particularly less successful.

31

Figs. 2: The effect of autonomous products and outsourced activity on (A) perceptions of hard

working, (B) perceptions of laziness, (C) perceptions of time pressure, and (D) perceptions of

success.

A B

C D

32

Moderated mediation. A moderated mediation analysis (Preacher and Hayes 2008;

model 7; Nbootstraps = 10.000) with product type (autonomous vs. traditional) as independent

variable, replaced activity (fun vs. tedious) as moderator, time pressure as well as the one-

item measure for lazyiness as parallel mediators, and perceived success as dependent variable

revealed that autonomous products have a positive and a negative path on perceived success.

The indirect effect of autonomous products via perceptions of hard working was significant

for the tedious conditions (B = -0.079, SE = 0.033, CI95 = [-0.148; -0.016]), and even

stronger and significant for the fun conditions (B = -0.165, SE = 0.038, CI95 = [-0.244; -

0.096]). The index of the moderated mediation was marginally significant (Index = -0.086, SE

= 0.045, CI95 = [-0.172; -0.002]). The indirect effect of autonomous products via perceptions

of time pressure was non-significant for the tedious conditions (B = 0.028, SE = 0.019, CI95 =

[-0.002; 0.068]), and even stronger and significant for the fun conditions (B = 0.101, SE =

0.027, CI95 = [0.051; 0.156]). The index of the moderated mediation was marginally

significant (Index = 0.073, SE = 0.029, CI95 = [0.024; 0.133]). Together the results indicate

33

that the effect of autonomous products on success goes has a negative indirect effect via

perceived laziness and a positive effect via perceived time pressure. The effects become even

stronger when the outsourced task is fun. The moderated mediation using the multi-item

measure of work hard had similar results and is reported in the appendix.

Fig. 3: The effect of autonomous products via perceptions of laziness and perceptions of time

pressure on perceptions of success.

Discussion

This study reveals that the effects of autonomous products are even stronger when

people delegate tasks that are normally perceived to be fun. This effect shows the specificity

of the effects, i.e., that autonomous products lead to even greater effects when the outsourced

task is fun. Moreover, this corroborates the theory of leisure class which predicts that the

highest level of laziness is achieved when even fun tasks are outsourced to slaves.

General Discussion

34

This article examines the consequences of a novel class of products: APs. The Pilot

Study which uses data of Twitter shows that people respond to consumers’ tweets about APs

with less words about work as well as xxx. Pilot Study 2 replicates these findings in a

controlled context using four different APs (i.e., a vacuum cleaner, a cooking machine, a lawn

mower, and a xxx) and reveals time pressure as a second key construct. Studies 1 and 2 focus

on laziness and demonstrate that people judge owners of APs to be lazier independent of their

gender or the type of autonomous product. Study 3 then tests a complete model including both

mediators showing that the time use indeed leads to greater perceptions of time pressure and

lower perceptions of laziness. This study also reveals implications for perceived success.

Study 4 demonstrates that also the outsourced activity matters and if the activity is construed

to be fun, people are even judged to be lazier and more under time pressure than if the activity

is construed as a tedious task. Taken together, our findings highlight how peers perceive

owners of APs as well as what implications this can have for the status of those owners.

Theoretical implications

Our key theoretical contribution is that autonomous products can send strong signals

to their owners’ peers (Belk 1988) and thus we uncover the social effects of this novel product

class. Specifically, our results extend findings on the evolving research on autonomous

products (Castelo 2019; de Bellis and Johar 2020; Schmitt 2019). This work is the first to

examine the social consequences of these products by examining how APs affect social

perceptions and provide three important insights: The key insight is that highlighting that the

freed-up time is not only used for work can attenuate the detrimental effect of APs on

perceptions of hard working. At the same time, people perceive owners of APs as more

pressed for time. Together these two consequences depict a profile that is not particularly

favorable: A person that is lazy but nevertheless is pressed for time. Second, even while

owners of autonomous products are perceived to work longer, they are not perceived to be

35

more hard working than their counterparts with traditional products. Finally, we show that the

effect of autonomous products translates to perceived success and thus a highly status relevant

variable.

Laziness and time pressure have become important constructs that determine one’s

social status and even early thoughts (Veblen 1899/2007) have considered the notion that not

working can be a status symbol. Recently, this notion has been challenged by revealing that

being busy can lead to more favorable perceptions of one’s peers (Bellezza et al. 2016; Yang

and Hsee 2019). In this work, we contribute to this novel research stream by focusing on a

critical, marketing-based antecedent of perceptions of laziness, time pressure and status: APs.

By showing that products (i.e., APs) and not only activities can facilitate peers’ perceptions of

busyness we significantly advance knowledge on the antecedents of these key constructs.

While this is the first work to reveal the consequences of products,

One’s peers’ judgments are important. Consumers choose products which are

associated with negative reference groups in a public consumption setting (White and Dahl

2006). Similarly, when people expect evaluations by others, they show higher interest for

variety (Ratner and Kahn 2002). They even diverge from conventionality and break social

norms to show their autonomy (Bellezza et al. 2014). Consumer’s autonomy and divergence

from the norm can even be interpreted as cool by their peers (Warren and Campbell 2014).

Similarly, on social media one’s peers affect one’s purchases (Aral and Walker 2012; Ariely

and Levav 2000; Algesheimer et al. 2005; Hu and Van den Bulte 2014; Mangleburg et al.

2004; Ratner and Kahn 2002; Schlager et al. 2018) and at the extreme even have broader

implications, such as psychological distress (Beeri et al. 2012; Tsai et al. 2009). As a result,

people often select products that allow them to communicate their desired identities, attitudes,

and characteristics (Belk 1988; Holt 1995). Moreover, it has to be emphasized that products

can signify class and might provide an indicator for success and achievement (Flynn et al.

2016). We advance the literature on peer judgment in one specific and important point: We 36

show that products can signal laziness and thus have a profound influence on one’s peers’

judgments. This could range harsh judgements of tech-shaming to the being perceived as a

hardworking individual.

Practical implications

Our work provides several implications for marketing communications and impression

management that are focused at attenuating the negative implications of

Consumers and companies will most likely eventually benefit from APs. Research on

autonomous products and consumers is, however, still in its beginnings and provides

companies with countless opportunities for market research. In this context, potential negative

consequences should be recognized: APs will profoundly reduce the number of cumbersome

chores we are obligated to perform, with implications not only for personal consumer

behavior but also for social perceptions. Autonomous products can have potential detrimental

effects on peer perceptions in meritocratic societies. Therefore, marketers can adjust their

communication strategy. By focusing on highly customized marketing techniques, the threats

of miscommunications can be reduced.

The practical contribution of this article in terms of marketing communication is

threefold. Consumers benefit from autonomous products by having more time for more

pressing and important tasks or by having time to relax. In the latter version, they might be

perceived as lazy. Marketing communications can therefore anticipate and mitigate negative

effects. For consumers, who are more intrigued by less hardworking people, one may

proactively communicate the opportunity to relax. In cultures and environments where

busyness is considered to be a status symbol, firms should highlight the opportunity to do

work while the autonomous product is completing work. In all societies, time saving and time

pressure should be emphasized.

37

The key limitation of this work is that our studies predominantly use scenarios (except

for the Pilot Study 1). Although our Pilot Study 2 and Study 5 asked participants to imagine a

real person, thus attenuating the pitfall of using hypothetical persons, they still require

imagining that this person has acquired a product. Thus, future research is needed to verify

our results by gauging the responses of peers of actual owners of APs.

38

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),

347-356.

Aldossari, M. Q., & Sidorova, A. (2018). Consumer acceptance of Internet of Things (IoT):

Smart home context. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1-11.

Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U., Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand

community: evidence from European car clubs Journal of Marketing 69(), 19 - 34.

Aguiar, M., Bils, M., Charles, K. K. and Hurst, E. (2007). Measuring Trends in Leisure: The

Allocation of Time Over Five Decades. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (3),

969–1006.

Aral, S., Walker, D. (2012). Identifying Influential and Susceptible Members of Social

Networks Science 337(6092), 337-341. https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1215842

Ariely, D., & Levav, J. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less

traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 279–290.

Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Manchanda, R. V. (2005). The influence of a mere social presence

in a retail context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 207–212.

https://doi.org/10.1086/432230

Argo, J. J. (2020). A contemporary review of three types of social influence in consumer

psychology. Consumer Psychology Review, 3(1), 126-140.Baran, S. J., Mok, J. J.,

Land, M., & Kang, T. Y. (1989). You are what you buy: Mass-mediated judgements

of People's worth. Journal of Communication, 39, 46–54.

Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural

equation models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34.

Bearden, William 0. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), "Reference Group Influence on Product and

Brand Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-194.

39

Beeri, A., Lev‐Wiesel, R. (2012). Social rejection by peers: a risk factor for psychological

distress Child and Adolescent Mental Health 17(4), 216-221.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2011.00637.x

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2),

139-168.

Bellezza, S., N. Paharia, and A. Keinan (2017). Conspicuous consumption of time: When

busyness and lack of leisure time become a status symbol. Journal of Consumer

Research, 44(1), 118–38.

Bellezza, Silvia, Francesca Gino, and Anat Keinan (2014), “The Red Sneakers Effect:

Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Non conformity,”Journal of

Consumer Research,41 (1), 35–54

Bem, Daryl J. (1972), "Self-Perception Theory," in Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 6). L. Berkowitz (Ed.), New York: Academic Press.

Berger, Jonah, and Chip Heath. (2007) "Where consumers diverge from others: Identity

signaling and product domains." Journal of Consumer Research 34.2 (2007): 121-134.

Berger, Jonah and Morgan K. Ward (2010), “Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous

Consumption,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 555-69.

Brack, A. D., & Benkenstien, M. (2012). The effects of overall similarity regarding the

customer-to-customer-relationship in a service con-text. Journal of Retailing and

Customer Service, 19, 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretc onser.2012.06.006

Brack, A. D., & Benkenstien, M. (2014). Responses to other similar customers in a service

setting – analyzing the moderating role of per-ceived performance risk. Journal of

Services Marketing, 28, 138–146. https ://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-05-2012-0089

Burke, R. J., & Ng, E. S. (2007). Workaholic behaviors: Do colleagues agree?. International

Journal of Stress Management, 14(3), 312.

40

Burroughs, W. Jeffrey, David R. Drews, and William K. Hallman (1991), “Predicting

Personality from Personal Possessions: A Self-Presentational Analysis,” Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (6), 147–63.

Camerer, Colin, Linda Babcock, George Loewenstein, and Richard H. Thaler (1997), “Labor

Supply of New York City Cabdrivers: One Day at a Time,” Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 112 (2), 407–41.

Castelo, N., Schmitt, B., & M. Sarvary (2019). Human or Robot? Consumer Responses to

Radical Cognitive Enhancement Products. Journal of the Association for Consumer

Research 4(3): 217-230.

Chen, Serena, David Shechter, and Shelly Chaiken (1996), “Get-ting at the Truth or Getting

Along: Accuracy- Versus Impression-Motivated Heuristic and Systematic

Processing,” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 262–75.

Chung, Jaeyeon, Leonard Lee, Donald R. Lehmann and Claire Tsai (2019), “How People Use

Found Time,” working paper.

Christensen, M. A., Bettencourt, L., Kaye, L., Moturu, S. T., Nguyen, K. T., Olgin, J. E.,

Pletcher, M. J. and Marcus, G. M. (2016). Direct Measurements of Smartphone

Screen-Time: Relationships with Demographics and Sleep. PLOS ONE, 11 (11).

Cotte, J. and Ratneshwar, S. (2017), “Timestyle and Leisure Decisions,” Journal of Leisure

Research 33(4), 396-409. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2001.11949951

Dahl, D. W., Darke, P., Gorn, G. J., & Weinberg, C. B. (2005). Promiscuous or confident?:

Attitudinal ambivalence toward condom purchase. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 35, 869–887.

Dahl, Darren W., Rajesh V. Manchanda, and Jennifer J. Argo (2001), “Embarrassment in

Consumer Purchase: The Role of Social Presence and Purchase Familiarity,” Journal

of Con-sumer Research, 28 (December), 473–81.

41

Darier, É. (1998). Time to be Lazy: Work, the Environment and Modern Subjectivities. Time

& Society, 7(2–3), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X98007002002

de Bellis, E., & Johar, G. (2020). Autonomous Shopping Systems: Identifying and

Overcoming Barriers to Consumer Adoption. Journal of Retailing. 96 (1) 74-87.

de Bellis E., Johar G., Schweitzer N. (2019) The Protestant Work Ethic, Consumers’ Quest

for Meaning, and the Adoption of Autonomous Products. working paper

De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Jegers, M., & Van Acker, F. (2009).

Development and validation of the work effort scale. European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 266-273.

DeVoe, S. E., & Pfeffer, J. (2011). Time is tight: how higher economic value of time

increases feelings of time pressure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 665.

Economist (2014), “Nice Work If You Can Get Out,” The Economist, April 22. (accessed

June 30th 2020)

Etkin, J., & Sela, A. (2016). How experience variety shapes postpurchase product evaluation.

Journal of Marketing Research, 53(1), 77-90.

Falck, O., Gold, R. and Heblich, S. (2014). E-lections: Voting behavior and the internet.

Festjens, A. and C. Janiszewski (2015), “The value of time,” Journal of Consumer Research,

1992 (December), 178–95.

Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pollitte, W. (2016). Materialism, status consumption, and

market involved consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 33(9), 761-776.

Fournier, Susan (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in

Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March): 343-353.

Gamst, F. C. (Ed.). (1995). Meanings of work: Considerations for the twenty-first century.

Suny Press.

Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1986). Subjective career success: A study of managers and

support personnel. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(2), 78-94.42

Gentzkow, M. (2006). Television and Voter Turnout*. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121

(3), 931–972.

Gershuny, Jonathan (2005), “Busyness as the Badge of Honor forthe New Superordinate

Working Class,” Social Research, 72 (2), 287–314.

Gierl, H., Huettl, V. (2010). Are scarce products always more attractive? The interaction of

different types of scarcity signals with products' suitability for conspicuous

consumption International Journal of Research in Marketing 27(3), 225-235.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.002

Gräf, M., & Unkelbach, C. (2016). Halo effects in trait assessment depend on information

valence: Why being honest makes you industrious, but lying does not make you lazy.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(3), 290-310.

Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A. L., & Nordfält, J. (2017). The Future of Retailing. Journal of

Retailing, 93(1), 1-6.

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status,

reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 98(3), 392.

Gosling, S., Ko, S., Mannarelli, T., Morris, M. (2002). A Room With a Cue: Personality

Judgments Based on Offices and Bedrooms Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 82(3), 379-398. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.379

Haire, M. (1950). Projective techniques in marketing research. Journal of Marketing, 14, 649-

656.

Hamilton, R., Ferraro, R., Haws, K. L., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2020). Traveling with

Companions: The Social Customer Journey. Journal of Marketing.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920908227

43

Hancock, P. A., Nourbakhsh, I., & Stewart, J. (2019). On the future of transportation in an era

of automated and autonomous vehicles. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 116(16), 7684 -7691.

Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal

of Consumer Research, 22(1), 1-16.

Hu, Y., Bulte, C. (2014). Nonmonotonic Status Effects in New Product Adoption

Marketing Science 33(4), 509-533. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2014.0857

Jörling, M., R. Böhm, and S. Paluch (2019), “Service Robots: Drivers of Perceived

Responsibility for Service Outcomes,” Journal of Service Research, 22 (4), 404–20.

Kahneman, Daniel, Alan B. Krueger, David Schkade, Norbert Schwarz, and Arthur A. Stone

(2006), “Would You Be Happier if You Were Richer? A Focusing Illusion,” Science,

312 (5782), 1908–10.

Kervyn, N., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2009). You want to appear competent? Be mean!

You want to appear sociable? Be lazy! Group differentiation and the compensation

effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 363-367

Kim, M. (1998). The working poor: lousy jobs or lazy workers?. Journal of Economic Issues,

32(1), 65-78.

Kwon, H., Ha, S., & Im, H. (2016). The impact of perceived similarity to other customers on

shopping mall satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 304–309.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretc onser.2015.01.004

Letheren, K., Russell-Bennett, R., & Whittaker, L. (2020). Black, white or grey magic? Our

future with artificial intelligence. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3-4), 216-

232.

Leung, E., G. Paolacci, and S. Puntoni (2018), “Man versus machine: Resisting automation in

identity-based consumer behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (6), 818–31.

44

Loukopoulos, P., & Gärling, T. (2005). Are car users too lazy to walk? The relationship of

distance thresholds for driving to the perceived effort of walking. Transportation

research record, 1926(1), 206-211.

Luck, M., & Benkenstein, M. (2015). Consumers between supermarket shelves: The influence

of inter-personal distance on consumer be-havior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, 26, 104–114. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretc onser.2015.06.002

Mangleburg, T., Doney, P., Bristol, T. (2004). Shopping with friends and teens’ susceptibility

to peer influence Journal of Retailing 80(2), 101-116.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2004.04.005

Mani, Z., & Chouk, I. (2017). Drivers of consumers’ resistance to smart products. Journal of

Marketing Management, 33(1-2), 76-97.

Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2019). A systematic review of the smart

home literature: A user perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,

138, 139-154.

McIntyre, S. H., & Miller, C. M. (1992). Social utility and fashion behavior. Marketing

Letters, 3(4), 371-382.

Sullivan, O. (2008). Busyness, status distinction and consumption strategies of the income

rich, time poor. Time & Society, 17(1), 5-26.

Parasuraman, R. (2010), “Designing automation for human use: Empirical studies and

quantitative models,” Ergonomics, 43 (7), 931–51.

Preacher, K. J. and Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing

and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods, 40 (3), 879–91.

Ratner, R. K., & Kahn, B. E. (2002). The impact of private versus public consumption on

variety-seeking behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 246–257.

45

Raz‐Yurovich, L. (2014). A transaction cost approach to outsourcing by households.

Population and Development Review, 40(2), 293-309.

Reyna, C. (2000). Lazy, dumb, or industrious: When stereotypes convey attribution

information in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 85-110.

Richins, Marsha (1994), "Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meaning of Possessions,"

Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September): 504-521.

Rijsdijk, S. A., and E. J. Hultink (2003), “’Honey, have you seen our hamster?’ Consumer

evaluations of autonomous domestic products,” Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 20 (3), 204–16.

Rijsdijk, S. A., & Hultink, E. J. (2009). How today's consumers perceive tomorrow's smart

products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 24-42.

Roy, S. K., Balaji, M. S., Quazi, A., & Quaddus, M. (2018). Predictors of customer

acceptance of and resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector. Journal of

Retailing and Consumer Services, 42, 147-160.

Sengupta, J., Dahl, D. W., & Gorn, G. J. (2002). Misrepresentation in the consumer context.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 69-79.

Schlager, T., Hildebrand, C., Häubl, G., Franke, N., Herrmann, A. (2018). Social Product-

Customization Systems: Peer Input, Conformity, and Consumers’ Evaluation of

Customized Products Journal of Management Information Systems 35(1), 319 - 349.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440763

Schmitt, B. (2019). “From Atoms to Bits and Back: A Research Curation on Digital

Technology and Agenda for Future Research” Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4),

825-832.

Schulte, Brigid (2014), Overwhelmed: Work, Love, and Play When No One Has the Time,

New York: Sarah Crichton Books.

46

Schweitzer, F., Belk, R., Jordan, W., & Ortner, M. (2019). Servant, friend or master? The

relationships users build with voice-controlled smart devices. Journal of Marketing

Management, 35(7-8), 693-715.

Schweitzer, F., & Van den Hende, E. A. (2016). To be or not to be in thrall to the march of

smart products. Psychology & Marketing, 33(10), 830-842.

Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., & Johnson, N. (2017). High-tech, hard work: An investigation of

teachers’ work in the digital age. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(4), 390-405.

Shavitt, S., & Nelson, M. (1999). The social identity function in person perception:

Communicated meanings of product preferences. In G. Maio & J. Olson (Eds.), Why

we evaluate: Function of attitudes (pp. 37–57). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Snyder, Charles R. and Harold L. Fromkin (1977), “Abnormalityas a Positive Characteristic:

The Development and Validationof a Scale Measuring Need for Uniqueness,”Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 86 (October), 518–27.

----- (1980),Uniqueness, New York: Plenum.Solomon, Michael R. (1988), “Mapping Product

Constellations: ASocial Categorization Approach to Symbolic

Consumption,”Psychology and Marketing, 5 (3), 233–58.

Stasiuk, K., Bochyńska, K., & Śliwińska, P. (2018). Is non-variety boring? The perception of

consumers who incorporate variety or non-variety in their consumer choices. Current

Psychology, 1-10.

Tedeschi, James T. (1981), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological

Research. New York: Academic Press

Tsai, Y., Wen, Y., Tsai, C., Tsai, T. (2009). Peer Pressure, Psychological Distress and the

Urge to Smoke International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

6(6), 1799-1811. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6061799

Thompson, D., Norton, M. (2011). The Social Utility of Feature Creep. Journal of Marketing

Research 48(3), 555 - 565. https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.3.55547

Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired

images: exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of

applied psychology, 86(2), 351.

Veblen, T. (1899/2007), The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Voth, Hans-Joachim (2001), “The Longest Years: New Estimates of Labor Input in England,

1760–1830,” Journal of Economic History, 61 (4), 1065–82.

Wagner, Tillmann, Thorsten Hennig-Thurau, and Thomas Rudolph (2009), “Does Customer

Demotion Jeopardize Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 73 (3), 69-85.

Wang, Y., Griskevicius, V. (2014). Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals:

Women's Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women Journal of Consumer Research

40(5), 834-854. https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/673256

Warren, C., & Campbell, M. C. (2014). What makes things cool? How autonomy influences

perceived coolness. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 543-563.

Westberg, K., Reid, M., & Kopanidis, F. (2020). Age identity, stereotypes and older

consumers’ service experiences. Journal of Services Marketing.

Whillans, A. V., Dunn, E. W., Smeets, P., Bekkers, R., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Buying time

promotes happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(32), 8523-

8527.

White, Katherine and Darren W. Dahl (2006), “To Be or Not Be?The Influence of

Dissociative Reference Groups on Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 16 (4), 404–414.

Wilcox, Keith, Juliano Laran, Andrew T. Stephen, and Peter P. Zubcsek (2016), “How Being

Busy Can Increase Motivation and Reduce Task Completion Time,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 110 (3), 371–84.

48

Yang, A. X. and C. K. Hsee (2019), “Idleness versus busyness,” Current Opinion in

Psychology, 26, 15–18.

49

Appendix

Table A-1: Products used as search terms on Twitter in the Pilot Study

Autonomous vacuum cleaners Traditional vacuum cleanersbissell ev675 dyson v8bobsweep pethair dyson cycloneecovacs deebot dyson v7ecovacs pure dyson light balleufy 11 numatic henryeufy 30 shark poweredeufy 35 miele compacteufy robovac gtech airramirobot roomba shark navigatorlg hom-bot miele completemiele scout rx2 miele blizzardneato botvac shark apexsamsung powerbot shark ionshark ion robot shark rocketshark iq robot hoover reactecovacs deebot ozmo bissell air ramroborock s6 oreck magnesiumneato robotics botvac dirt devilroborock e20 miele dynamicshark ion r85 miele electroilife v3s hoover bh50020pcilife v5s eureka mightyilife shinebot bissell featherweightxiaomi roborock bissell zingroborock 2 oreck commercialecovac deebot n79s shark rotatorneato botvac d3 bissell cleanviewdyson eyesight Eureka NEU182Adeebot shark duocleanrobovac dyson v11roomba bissell poweredgehom-bot tineco a10scout rx2 dyson big ballbotvac vorwerk vk200powerbot vax bladeion robot bosch bcs122gbiq robot shark nv801ukroborock bh50020pcshinebot NEU182Aecovac vk200

50

Table A-2: Correlations (S2)

TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 WH1 WH2 WH3 WH4 WH5 WH6 WH7 WH8 WH9TP1TP2 0.87*** TP3 0.83*** 0.85*** TP4 0.90*** 0.87*** 0.83*** Word-Hard1 0.26*** 0.22*** 0.19*** 0.19*** Word-Hard2 0.25*** 0.21*** 0.20*** 0.20*** 0.79*** Word-Hard3 0.20*** 0.15*** 0.15** 0.13** 0.81*** 0.81*** Word-Hard4 0.26*** 0.21*** 0.18*** 0.20*** 0.76*** 0.78*** 0.80*** Word-Hard5 0.19*** 0.14** 0.15** 0.14** 0.77*** 0.79*** 0.80*** 0.80*** Word-Hard6 0.21*** 0.15*** 0.14** 0.16*** 0.76*** 0.79*** 0.81*** 0.77*** 0.79*** Word-Hard7 0.31*** 0.26*** 0.24*** 0.27*** 0.76*** 0.79*** 0.77*** 0.78*** 0.76*** 0.75*** Word-Hard8 0.22*** 0.18*** 0.15*** 0.15*** 0.79*** 0.82*** 0.82*** 0.80*** 0.79*** 0.84*** 0.77*** Word-Hard9 0.25*** 0.21*** 0.20*** 0.20*** 0.78*** 0.82*** 0.80*** 0.77*** 0.79*** 0.79*** 0.80*** 0.77*** Word-Hard10 0.26*** 0.22*** 0.19*** 0.21*** 0.78*** 0.80*** 0.79*** 0.73*** 0.75*** 0.79*** 0.77*** 0.78*** 0.81***

51

Appendix 1: Moderated mediation with multi-item measure of work hard (Study 5)

We used a second moderated mediation analysis to corroborate the effects of autonomous

products and replaced activity on success.

A moderated mediation analysis (Preacher and Hayes 2008; model 7; Nbootstraps =

10.000) with product type (autonomous vs. traditional) as independent variable, replaced

activity (fun vs. tedious) as moderator, time pressure as well as the mutli-item measure for

perceptions hard work as parallel mediators, and perceived success as dependent variable

revealed that autonomous products have a positive and a negative path on perceived success.

The indirect effect of autonomous products via perceptions of hard working was non-

significant for the tedious conditions (B = -0.135, SE = 0.075, CI95 = [-0.287; 0.014]), but

stronger and significant for the fun conditions (B = -0.325, SE = 0.070, CI95 = [-0.469; -

0.191]). The index of the moderated mediation was marginally significant (Index = -0.190, SE

= 0.099, CI95 = [-0.388; -0.002]). The indirect effect of autonomous products via perceptions

of time pressure was non-significant for the tedious conditions (B = 0.003, SE = 0.005, CI95 =

[-0.005; 0.015]), and even stronger and significant for the fun conditions (B = 0.0120, SE =

0.013, CI95 = [-0.013; 0.041]). The index of the moderated mediation was marginally

significant (Index = 0.009, SE = 0.010, CI95 = [-0.009; 0.003]).

52