November 4, 2025
mast3r/Depositphotos.com
Should In-Store Robots Resemble Humans?
A university study finds that adding anthropomorphism features to frontline robots — such as humanlike “expressive eyes, emotive voices, and subtle gestures” — increases bystanders’ empathic responses to help reduce the potential mistreatment of in-store robots.
The researchers at South Korea’s Hanyang University said in a press release, “This does not just improve likability, but also acts as a moral signal — encouraging customers to treat robots with more dignity and reducing the spread of abusive behavior.”
However, a recent study from researchers at the University of Mississippi found consumers unsettled when robotic shopping assistants look too human or interact beyond completing a task, such as showing emotion or telling jokes.
“Our results suggest that the ‘uncanny valley’ theory is at play,” said Barry Babin, marketing professor at the University of Mississippi. “Basically, when nonhuman things look or act too human, we react with a sense of creepiness. In highly anthropomorphic conditions, the sense of uncanniness can create a negative reaction. Thus, when the robot looks human and tries to joke around, it does not come across well.”
Babin noted that robots can be made with humanlike appearances and mannerisms, but also work as a flat-screen panel or ATM. Babin added, “Particularly when a robot is humanlike, it should just be designed to provide utilitarian (practical) benefits.”
Humanoid Robots Entering Service Roles
Humanoid robots nonetheless are becoming a common sight in hotels worldwide, from Tokyo to Las Vegas, and robotics makers continue to explore ways to make robots appear more human. A research team from Osaka University has created a technology enabling androids’ facial expressions to dynamically convey mood states like “excited” or “sleepy” by generating facial movements modeled as overlapping, decaying waves.
Research from Washington State University found people are more comfortable talking to female rather than male robots working in service roles in hotels.
“People have a tendency to feel more comfort in being cared for by females because of existing gender stereotyping about service roles,” said Soobin Seo, a professor of hospitality management at WSU. “That gender stereotype appears to transfer to robot interactions, and it is more amplified when the robots are more human like.”
At Stop & Shop, appeal for Marty, its robot that checks for spills and checks stock, has grown since the northeastern grocer added “googly” eyes, began celebrating his birthday, and dressed him up to celebrate the holidays. Marty has become brand ambassador, even making an appearance at Fenway Park, and is available in a plush doll format.
BrainTrust
Ryan Mathews
Founder, CEO, Black Monk Consulting
Scott Benedict
Founder & CEO, Benedict Enterprises LLC
Doug Garnett
President, Protonik
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Do you think service robots in retail settings will work better or worse if they reflect human-like appearances and mannerisms?
Do you see consumers eventually growing comfortable with humanoid robots serving in certain positions, such as cashiers, stockers, food prep, or greeters?
Poll
Loading …
It depends on what the robots are designed to do. Tasks like cleaning floors don’t require humanoid robots, while more dexterous tasks may call for configurations with more human-like features. That said, customer-facing robots that look too human often run into the ‘uncanny valley’ problem – they tend to freak people out. That’s why many public-facing robots are designed to be cute or stylized; we’re simply much more comfortable with that. Of course, there is nothing wrong with integrating some emotional mannerisms and expressions to create more empathetic connections.
It seems like the majority of opinions of the BrainTrust are not supportive of humanoid robots. Personally, I don’t have a problem with human looking robots, especially if they are performing customer service tasks like product recommendations in a fashion retail store. The quality of humanoid robots are improving and the AI offers the ability for language translation, which would be helpful in multi-language speaking areas. Whether we like it or not, I think we will see humanoid robots replacing some retail cusomer service roles in the next 5-10 years.
I think humanoid, as in shaped like a human, is fine. It’s more the look that matters. Some of the robots designed to look too human in facial features, etc. are plain freaky – because they’re not quite human enough and that does not register well with people. Whereas I don’t think anyone would have an issue with a robot that looked like C-3PO!
I would go for a middle ground: human-like features – big sad eyes, a mechanical laugh, etc. – but not too life-like…that would creep me out. (we’ll know we’ve got it just right when a robot files the first harrassment claim!)
Have you been to Universal’s Epic Universe yet? The animatronics on the Monsters Unchained attraction are crazy realistic. So, would I like to be helped by a robot that looks human? Nope. And I don’t think I am alone.
The comment in the article about people having a tendency to feel more comfortable being cared for by a female robot is creepy, and frankly, just a little insulting. Stick with Marty; friendly robots that look like robots.
“Too human” seems to be the common thread in all our answers (I’m just waiting for that moment when we find out one of the RW Panelists is actually an AI bot ! 🙂 )
Would a very human resemblance be a forever reminder:
1) that a human lost its job to this thing- that doesn’t demand PTO, a raise or respect in the working world.
2) that companies have far too much time on their hands… to lay off humans to “save $$” but then waste same company salaried time designing face/body features of a robot?
Consumers coming to terms w. corporations who like manipulating humans
Instore robots should not be made to look like humans. Consider this with an important visual design principle. Nothing is worse in a design than to be “almost” right. Humans are exceptionally sensitive to small things which aren’t right in something. Making a robot in human form is often claimed to, somehow, make the robot more trustworthy. Yet when humans encounter “almost” humans their reactions are quite bad — as we see in the valid anger about bot customer service where “human sounding” opening questions are followed with “I’m a bot. I can’t answer that.” It will be decades before humanoid robots should be used in retail.
The question of whether store service robots should resemble humans isn’t a settled one—and until human-like robots are tested at scale in real retail settings, we simply won’t know the definitive answer. Some research shows that anthropomorphic features (expressive eyes, emotive voices, subtle gestures) can improve likability and encourage respectful treatment of robots. At the same time, studies also highlight mixed consumer responses when robots look too human or behave beyond purely functional tasks—raising potential discomfort or even mistrust.
From a practical standpoint, the best position for retailers and merchandisers is one of cautious experimentation. If robots are deployed as cashiers, greeters, stock-assistants or food-prep aides, their appearance and interaction model should align with the role they perform and the brand’s experience promise. A greeter robot might benefit from friendly human-like cues, whereas a back-of-house stock robot may be more utility-focused (less human look, more function).
My recommendation: use a “test & learn” framework. Roll out human-like bots in limited locations or pilot roles, measure customer acceptance, interaction quality, cost/maintenance impacts and brand fit. Monitor how different design cues (humanoid vs machine aesthetic) affect behavior and sentiment. Only once sufficient data accumulates should you decide whether to scale and standardize the design.
re: ““test & learn” framework. Roll out human-like bots”
The consumer side of me wants to know if the entire process is indeed $ cheaper than hiring a human. (Robots need tech/skilled salaried workers to maintain)
Human-like robots deployed in times of mass un and under employment might not be as cute a C-suites think it will be.
Human-like robots can provide a more relatable and engaging experience for customers, as they mimic human expressions and interactions. However, non-human-like robots may be perceived as more efficient and less likely to cause discomfort, as their mechanical appearance underscores their role as tools rather than companions. Ultimately, the choice between the two depends on the desired customer experience and the specific tasks the robots are intended to perform.
The emotional nature of human machine interfaces is really a cultural, not an industry, issue. In Japan, people … okay, not many but some … have “married” one form of technology or another. In the U.S. we tend to prefer our technologies with slightly less intimate interfaces.
In our society one could argue that for certain demographics, say anyone over 14, the more anthropomorphic the robot, the more off-putting it may be. But that will change as Boomers fears of being replaced or invaded by legions of mechanical beings is replaced by widespread Gen Z and Alpha acceptance of multiple forms and manifestations of technology in their daily lives.
So, for now, it may be best to keep the machines looking like machines and the people clearly identifiable as people, especially at the Point of Purchase.
Robots have naturally integrated into modern DCs and other supply chain nodes where they perform highly utilitarian tasks and can move at speed. However, in a customer-facing retail environment, robots are likely to work better with enough human likeness to be approachable and trusted, but worse when they cross the “uncanny valley” into creepy near-perfect realism. Robotic movements need to be human-friendly and respectful of personal space. Over time and with increased exposure, consumers will become more comfortable with utilitarian roles. Still, it is best to wait before introducing social roles, such as greeters, or in social exchanges that involve emotional elements.
Tread lightly here. Customers will be OK with robots that clean floors or check for stockouts, but deploying robots for live-customer interactions will backfire big time in a tine of rising unemployment. Customers really won’t like it.
Please, let’s not blur the lines between humans and robots. I can handle that at the movies, but not in real life.
and you thought you left the theater! =)
Robots significantly boost in-store efficiency by handling repetitive tasks like inventory checks and floor cleaning, freeing up human staff to focus on complex customer service and selling. However, a clear line must be drawn where human emotional intelligence and complex judgment are required, ensuring that robots support, rather than replace, the essential personal connection and empathy vital to the retail experience.
Love the Terminator movies yet human-like robots will invite shopper aggression. Conversely, Walmart’s robot in the dairy aisle is adorable and endearing because its appearance skews more toward R2-D2.
Robots will play a growing role in retail, but making them look and act human may not always be the right path. In retail, trust and comfort matter as much as efficiency. When technology starts to mimic people too closely, it can distract from its purpose and make customers uneasy.
The goal should be to design robots that feel approachable, not human. A friendly tone, clear communication, and helpful behavior can achieve that without crossing into the “uncanny” space that some studies describe. Customers want reliability and consistency, not a robot that tries to tell a joke or express emotions.
Retailers should focus on how these tools improve the store experience: faster restocking, better product availability, and cleaner aisles. When technology serves the customer clearly and respectfully, its form matters less than its function.
More Discussions
How Can Retailers Improve Shoppers’ Sense of Closure When Concerns Emerge?
How can retailers better provide closure and proper resolution to today’s shoppers?NRF 2026 Rewind: Abercrombie’s CEO Shares Leadership Lessons
In a session at the NRF Big Show, Abercrombie & Fitch Co.’s CEO Fran Horowitz shared…Is the Luxury Department Store Facing Extinction?
Are luxury retail stores expected to go the way of the dodo?
It depends on what the robots are designed to do. Tasks like cleaning floors don’t require humanoid robots, while more dexterous tasks may call for configurations with more human-like features. That said, customer-facing robots that look too human often run into the ‘uncanny valley’ problem – they tend to freak people out. That’s why many public-facing robots are designed to be cute or stylized; we’re simply much more comfortable with that. Of course, there is nothing wrong with integrating some emotional mannerisms and expressions to create more empathetic connections.
It seems like the majority of opinions of the BrainTrust are not supportive of humanoid robots. Personally, I don’t have a problem with human looking robots, especially if they are performing customer service tasks like product recommendations in a fashion retail store. The quality of humanoid robots are improving and the AI offers the ability for language translation, which would be helpful in multi-language speaking areas. Whether we like it or not, I think we will see humanoid robots replacing some retail cusomer service roles in the next 5-10 years.
I think humanoid, as in shaped like a human, is fine. It’s more the look that matters. Some of the robots designed to look too human in facial features, etc. are plain freaky – because they’re not quite human enough and that does not register well with people. Whereas I don’t think anyone would have an issue with a robot that looked like C-3PO!
I would go for a middle ground: human-like features – big sad eyes, a mechanical laugh, etc. – but not too life-like…that would creep me out. (we’ll know we’ve got it just right when a robot files the first harrassment claim!)
Have you been to Universal’s Epic Universe yet? The animatronics on the Monsters Unchained attraction are crazy realistic. So, would I like to be helped by a robot that looks human? Nope. And I don’t think I am alone.
The comment in the article about people having a tendency to feel more comfortable being cared for by a female robot is creepy, and frankly, just a little insulting. Stick with Marty; friendly robots that look like robots.
“Too human” seems to be the common thread in all our answers (I’m just waiting for that moment when we find out one of the RW Panelists is actually an AI bot ! 🙂 )
Would a very human resemblance be a forever reminder:
1) that a human lost its job to this thing- that doesn’t demand PTO, a raise or respect in the working world.
2) that companies have far too much time on their hands… to lay off humans to “save $$” but then waste same company salaried time designing face/body features of a robot?
Consumers coming to terms w. corporations who like manipulating humans
Instore robots should not be made to look like humans. Consider this with an important visual design principle. Nothing is worse in a design than to be “almost” right. Humans are exceptionally sensitive to small things which aren’t right in something. Making a robot in human form is often claimed to, somehow, make the robot more trustworthy. Yet when humans encounter “almost” humans their reactions are quite bad — as we see in the valid anger about bot customer service where “human sounding” opening questions are followed with “I’m a bot. I can’t answer that.” It will be decades before humanoid robots should be used in retail.
The question of whether store service robots should resemble humans isn’t a settled one—and until human-like robots are tested at scale in real retail settings, we simply won’t know the definitive answer. Some research shows that anthropomorphic features (expressive eyes, emotive voices, subtle gestures) can improve likability and encourage respectful treatment of robots. At the same time, studies also highlight mixed consumer responses when robots look too human or behave beyond purely functional tasks—raising potential discomfort or even mistrust.
From a practical standpoint, the best position for retailers and merchandisers is one of cautious experimentation. If robots are deployed as cashiers, greeters, stock-assistants or food-prep aides, their appearance and interaction model should align with the role they perform and the brand’s experience promise. A greeter robot might benefit from friendly human-like cues, whereas a back-of-house stock robot may be more utility-focused (less human look, more function).
My recommendation: use a “test & learn” framework. Roll out human-like bots in limited locations or pilot roles, measure customer acceptance, interaction quality, cost/maintenance impacts and brand fit. Monitor how different design cues (humanoid vs machine aesthetic) affect behavior and sentiment. Only once sufficient data accumulates should you decide whether to scale and standardize the design.
re: ““test & learn” framework. Roll out human-like bots”
The consumer side of me wants to know if the entire process is indeed $ cheaper than hiring a human. (Robots need tech/skilled salaried workers to maintain)
Human-like robots deployed in times of mass un and under employment might not be as cute a C-suites think it will be.
Human-like robots can provide a more relatable and engaging experience for customers, as they mimic human expressions and interactions. However, non-human-like robots may be perceived as more efficient and less likely to cause discomfort, as their mechanical appearance underscores their role as tools rather than companions. Ultimately, the choice between the two depends on the desired customer experience and the specific tasks the robots are intended to perform.
The emotional nature of human machine interfaces is really a cultural, not an industry, issue. In Japan, people … okay, not many but some … have “married” one form of technology or another. In the U.S. we tend to prefer our technologies with slightly less intimate interfaces.
In our society one could argue that for certain demographics, say anyone over 14, the more anthropomorphic the robot, the more off-putting it may be. But that will change as Boomers fears of being replaced or invaded by legions of mechanical beings is replaced by widespread Gen Z and Alpha acceptance of multiple forms and manifestations of technology in their daily lives.
So, for now, it may be best to keep the machines looking like machines and the people clearly identifiable as people, especially at the Point of Purchase.
Robots have naturally integrated into modern DCs and other supply chain nodes where they perform highly utilitarian tasks and can move at speed. However, in a customer-facing retail environment, robots are likely to work better with enough human likeness to be approachable and trusted, but worse when they cross the “uncanny valley” into creepy near-perfect realism. Robotic movements need to be human-friendly and respectful of personal space. Over time and with increased exposure, consumers will become more comfortable with utilitarian roles. Still, it is best to wait before introducing social roles, such as greeters, or in social exchanges that involve emotional elements.
Tread lightly here. Customers will be OK with robots that clean floors or check for stockouts, but deploying robots for live-customer interactions will backfire big time in a tine of rising unemployment. Customers really won’t like it.
Please, let’s not blur the lines between humans and robots. I can handle that at the movies, but not in real life.
and you thought you left the theater! =)
Robots significantly boost in-store efficiency by handling repetitive tasks like inventory checks and floor cleaning, freeing up human staff to focus on complex customer service and selling. However, a clear line must be drawn where human emotional intelligence and complex judgment are required, ensuring that robots support, rather than replace, the essential personal connection and empathy vital to the retail experience.
Love the Terminator movies yet human-like robots will invite shopper aggression. Conversely, Walmart’s robot in the dairy aisle is adorable and endearing because its appearance skews more toward R2-D2.
Robots will play a growing role in retail, but making them look and act human may not always be the right path. In retail, trust and comfort matter as much as efficiency. When technology starts to mimic people too closely, it can distract from its purpose and make customers uneasy.
The goal should be to design robots that feel approachable, not human. A friendly tone, clear communication, and helpful behavior can achieve that without crossing into the “uncanny” space that some studies describe. Customers want reliability and consistency, not a robot that tries to tell a joke or express emotions.
Retailers should focus on how these tools improve the store experience: faster restocking, better product availability, and cleaner aisles. When technology serves the customer clearly and respectfully, its form matters less than its function.