Towards a new scale for assessing attitudes towards social robots

Abstract Background: The surge in the development of social robots gives rise to an increased need for systematic methods of assessing attitudes towards robots. Aim: This study presents the development of a questionnaire for assessing attitudinal stance towards social robots: the ASOR. Methods: The 37-item ASOR questionnaire was developed by a task-force with members from different disciplines. It was founded on theoretical considerations of how social robots could influence five different aspects of relatedness. Results: Three hundred thirty-nine people responded to the survey. Factor analysis of the ASOR yielded a three-factor solution consisting of a total of 25 items: “ascription of mental capacities”, “ascription of socio-practical capacities”, and “ascription of socio-moral status”. This data was further triangulated with data from interviews (n = 10). Conclusion: the ASOR allows for assessment of three distinct facets of ascription of capacities to social robots and offers a new type of assessment of attitudes towards social robots. It appeared that ASOR not only assesses ascription of capacities to social robots but it also gauged overall positive attitudes towards social robots.

[1]  P. M. Hendryx-Bedalov,et al.  Ethnography , 1998 .

[2]  Catharina Vesterager Smedegaard,et al.  Reframing the Role of Novelty within Social HRI: from Noise to Information , 2019, 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[3]  Johanna Seibt,et al.  Fair Proxy Communication: Using Social Robots to Modify the Mechanisms of Implicit Social Cognition , 2018, Research Ideas and Outcomes.

[4]  Shuichi Nishio,et al.  Model of Dual Anthropomorphism: The Relationship Between the Media Equation Effect and Implicit Anthropomorphism , 2018, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[5]  Jeehoon Kim,et al.  Technology Access and Use, and Their Associations With Social Engagement Among Older Adults: Do Women and Men Differ? , 2016, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[6]  P. Mitkidis,et al.  It Depends Who Is Watching You: 3-D Agent Cues Increase Fairness , 2016, PloS one.

[7]  D. Toher,et al.  Why Welch’s test is Type I error robust , 2016 .

[8]  Paul Rouse,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of a robot measuring vital signs in a rural medical practice , 2015, 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[9]  Raul Hakli,et al.  Attitudinal Change in Elderly Citizens Toward Social Robots: The Role of Personality Traits and Beliefs About Robot Functionality , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[10]  T. Saxton,et al.  The influence of anthropomorphic tendencies on human hoarding behaviours , 2015 .

[11]  Jolene D. Smyth,et al.  Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed‐Mode Surveys , 2014 .

[12]  John A. Johnson.  Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120 , 2014 .

[13]  G. Nejat,et al.  Acceptance and Attitudes Toward a Human-like Socially Assistive Robot by Older Adults , 2014, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[14]  Tatsuo Arai,et al.  Impressions of Humanoids: The Development of a Measure for Evaluating a Humanoid , 2014, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[15]  Julia Fink,et al.  Anthropomorphism and Human Likeness in the Design of Robots and Human-Robot Interaction , 2012, ICSR.

[16]  B. MacDonald,et al.  Attitudes towards health‐care robots in a retirement village , 2012, Australasian journal on ageing.

[17]  Birgitte Ravn Olesen.  Svend Brinkmann & Lene Tanggaard (red.): Kvalitative metoder - En grundbog. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. 2010. , 2012 .

[18]  D. Wegner,et al.  Morality takes two: Dyadic morality and mind perception. , 2012 .

[19]  Takashi Minato,et al.  Telenoid: tele-presence android for communication , 2011, SIGGRAPH '11.

[20]  Fang-Wu Tung,et al.  Influence of Gender and Age on the Attitudes of Children towards Humanoid Robots , 2011, HCI.

[21]  S. Leung.  A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales , 2011 .

[22]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[23]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed Agents , 2011, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[24]  Christopher T. Daly.  An Introduction to Philosophical Methods , 2010 .

[25]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Who Sees Human? , 2010, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[26]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  The USUS Evaluation Framework for Human-Robot Interaction , 2009 .

[27]  Bruce A. MacDonald,et al.  Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[28]  Arthur D. Fisk,et al.  Attitudinal and Intentional Acceptance of Domestic Robots by Younger and Older Adults , 2009, HCI.

[29]  Johnny Saldaña,et al.  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , 2009 .

[30]  Brian T. Gill,et al.  Children's Behavior toward and Understanding of Robotic and Living Dogs , 2009 .

[31]  Kurt Gray,et al.  Moral typecasting: divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. , 2009, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  R. N. Spreng,et al.  The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale Development and Initial Validation of a Factor-Analytic Solution to Multiple Empathy Measures , 2009, Journal of personality assessment.

[33]  M. Studley,et al.  ‘Heart Robot’, a public engagement project , 2009 .

[34]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[35]  K. Himma.  Artificial agency, consciousness, and the criteria for moral agency: what properties must an artificial agent have to be a moral agent? , 2009, Ethics and Information Technology.

[36]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Prediction of Human Behavior in Human--Robot Interaction Using Psychological Scales for Anxiety and Negative Attitudes Toward Robots , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[37]  Charles R. Crowell,et al.  Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males? , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[38]  R. Barbour.  Doing Focus Groups , 2008 .

[39]  Chong Ho Yu,et al.  A data visualization and data mining approach to response and non-response analysis in survey research , 2007 .

[40]  Pedro M. Valero-Mora,et al.  Determining the Number of Factors to Retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out Parallel Analysis , 2007 .

[41]  Sang Ryong Kim,et al.  Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human-robot interaction , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[42]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Measurement of Anxiety toward Robots , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[43]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Task Structure and User Attributes as Elements of Human-Robot Interaction Design , 2006, ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[44]  G. Ruxton.  The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test , 2006 .

[45]  Rachid Alami,et al.  How may I serve you?: a robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context , 2006, HRI '06.

[46]  T. Kanda,et al.  Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots , 2006 .

[47]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction , 2006, AI & SOCIETY.

[48]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  What is a robot companion - friend, assistant or butler? , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[49]  S. J. Simon,et al.  Attitudes Towards Product Website Design: A Study of the Effects of Gender , 2005 .

[50]  Kai Oliver Arras,et al.  Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000 people survey , 2005 .

[51]  Naomi S. Baron.  See you Online , 2004 .

[52]  Christine M. Korsgaard.  Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals , 2004 .

[53]  K. Neff,et al.  The Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Self-Compassion , 2003 .

[54]  Brian R. Duffy,et al.  Anthropomorphism and the social robot , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[55]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  Introduction to Social Psychology , 2002 .

[56]  R. Hardin.  Trust and Trustworthiness , 2002 .

[57]  B P O'Connor,et al.  SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test , 2000, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[58]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

[59]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[60]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence , 1996 .

[61]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Anthropocentrism and computers , 1995, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[62]  P. Atkinson.  Understanding Ethnographic Texts , 1992 .

[63]  R. Garland.  The Mid-Point on a Rating Scale: Is it Desirable? , 1991 .

[64]  S. Briggs,et al.  The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales , 1986 .

[65]  S. Presser,et al.  Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context , 1996 .

[66]  Martyn Hammersley,et al.  Ethnography : Principles in Practice , 1983 .

[67]  R. Cattell.  The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[68]  J. Horn.  A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis , 1965, Psychometrika.

[69]  R. Carnap.  Meaning and necessity : a study in semantics and modal logic , 1948 .