Acceptance of Social Robots by Elder People: Does Psychosocial Functioning Matter?

This study aims at investigating the relevance of psychosocial functioning for the acceptance of social robots by elder people in the context of everyday functioning. It was assumed that the level of psychosocial functioning either hinders or promotes robot acceptance, depending on the fit between elder people’s level of everyday functioning and the demands imposed by the robot (user–technology fit). To investigate this assumption, two social robots imposing different demands on the user, i.e., the easy-to-handle therapeutic robot Paro (low demands) and the less intuitive telepresence robot Giraff (high demands), were introduced successively to $$N=29$$N=29 cognitively and physically healthy elder people. To implement different levels of user–technology fit, participants rated their intention to use each robot for both a scenario of high and a scenario of low everyday functioning. Psychosocial functioning was assessed with emotional loneliness, depressive mood and life satisfaction as indicators of psychological well-being, and social support as indicator of social resources. Results show that lower social support was associated with higher acceptance of the less intuitive robot Giraff in the high everyday functioning scenario (adequate user–technology fit). In the low everyday functioning scenario (poor fit), however, lower psychological well-being was associated with lower acceptance of Giraff. For the rather intuitive robot Paro (adequate user–technology fit regardless of the level of everyday functioning), lower life satisfaction was associated with lower acceptance in both everyday functioning scenarios. The findings show the importance of psychosocial variables for the acceptance of social robots by elder people and underline the relevance of the fit between user and technology. Moreover, they suggest a more intense consideration of complex psychological mechanisms and individual user characteristics in research on robot acceptance by elder people.

[1]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: Acceptance, Benefits, and Concerns , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[2]  G. Gelderblom,et al.  Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview , 2004 .

[3]  R. Wilcox.  Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing , 1997 .

[4]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[5]  A. D. Fisk,et al.  Understanding Aging in Place for Older Adults: A Needs Analysis , 2009, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual Meeting.

[6]  D. Bouwhuis,et al.  Older adults' motivated choice for technological innovation: evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. , 2006, Psychology and aging.

[7]  Marion Gray,et al.  Baby boomers' use and perception of recommended assistive technology: A systematic review , 2009, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[8]  Susanne Iwarsson,et al.  Aging well and the environment: toward an integrative model and research agenda for the future. , 2012, The Gerontologist.

[9]  Cipriano Galindo,et al.  Evaluation of a Telepresence Robot for the Elderly: A Spanish Experience , 2013, IWINAC.

[10]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[11]  Vanessa Evers,et al.  Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[12]  Louis Neven,et al.  'But obviously not for me': robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. , 2010, Sociology of health & illness.

[13]  Edgar Brunner,et al.  A class of rank-score tests in factorial designs , 2002 .

[14]  Takanori Shibata,et al.  Investigation on People Living with Seal Robot at Home , 2011, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[15]  Monika Knopf,et al.  What Is Emotional About Emotional Robotics , 2016 .

[16]  A. Chan,et al.  A review of technology acceptance by older adults , 2011 .

[17]  Richard Schulz.  - Facilitators and Barriers to Technology Uptake: Individual End-User Perspectives , 2012 .

[18]  K. Axelsson,et al.  Using assistive technology services at differing levels of care: healthy older couples' perceptions. , 2010, Journal of advanced nursing.

[19]  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..

[20]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[21]  Håkan Eftring,et al.  What Older People Expect of Robots: A Mixed Methods Approach , 2013, ICSR.

[22]  J. Jutai,et al.  A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs) , 2007, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[23]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Investigating the Suitability of Social Robots for the Wellbeing of the Elderly , 2011, ACII.

[24]  N. Chappell,et al.  Mobility Restriction and the Use of Devices among Seniors , 1994 .

[25]  Silvia Coradeschi,et al.  A Review of Mobile Robotic Telepresence , 2013, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[26]  C. Oppenauer.  Motivation and needs for technology use in old age , 2009 .

[27]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots , 2006, AI & SOCIETY.

[28]  Bruce A. MacDonald,et al.  Does the Robot Have a Mind? Mind Perception and Attitudes Towards Robots Predict Use of an Eldercare Robot , 2014, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[29]  Somaya Ben Allouch,et al.  The Influence of Control on the Acceptance of Ambient Intelligence by Elderly People: An Explorative Study , 2008, AmI.

[30]  Maartje M. A. de Graaf,et al.  Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots , 2013, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[31]  Ferdinando Fornara,et al.  Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach , 2005, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[32]  Paul B. Baltes,et al.  On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory , 1997 .

[33]  Cory D. Kidd,et al.  An Interactive Robot in a Nursing Home: Preliminary Remarks , 2005 .

[34]  Jenay M. Beer,et al.  Older Adults’ Preferences for and Acceptance of Robot Assistance for Everyday Living Tasks , 2012, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual Meeting.

[35]  P. Flandorfer.  Population Ageing and Socially Assistive Robots for Elderly Persons: The Importance of Sociodemographic Factors for User Acceptance , 2012 .

[36]  Bruce A. MacDonald,et al.  Acceptance of Healthcare Robots for the Older Population: Review and Future Directions , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[37]  Ya-Huei Wu,et al.  The Attitudes and Perceptions of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment Toward an Assistive Robot , 2016, Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society.

[38]  J. Kronenfeld,et al.  Maintaining functional independence in elderly adults: the roles of health status and financial resources in predicting home modifications and use of mobility equipment. , 2002, The Gerontologist.

[39]  Seongcheol Kim,et al.  Understanding the factors affecting online elderly user's participation in video UCC services , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[40]  Arthur D. Fisk,et al.  The Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement(CREATE): A program to enhance technology for older adults , 2001 .

[41]  J. Broekens,et al.  Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review , 2009 .

[42]  William C. Mann,et al.  Predictors of the Use of Assistive Devices that Address Physical Impairments Among Community-Based Frail Elders , 2004 .

[43]  Takanori Shibata,et al.  Cross-Cultural Studies on Subjective Evaluation of a Seal Robot , 2009, Adv. Robotics.

[44]  de M.M.A. Graaf,et al.  Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes , 2014, HRI 2014.

[45]  D. Bouwhuis.  Design for person-environment interaction in older age: a gerontechnological perspective , 2003 .

[46]  V. Leirer,et al.  Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. , 1982, Journal of psychiatric research.

[47]  R. Schulz.  Quality of life technology handbook , 2012 .

[48]  C. McCreadie,et al.  The acceptability of assistive technology to older people , 2005, Ageing and Society.

[49]  Suzie Drummond,et al.  Connecting the person with dementia and family: a feasibility study of a telepresence robot , 2014, BMC Geriatrics.

[50]  Monika Knopf,et al.  Evidence and deployment-based research into care for the elderly using emotional robots: Psychological, methodological and cross-cultural facets. , 2013 .

[51]  Håkan Eftring,et al.  Would Granny Let an Assistive Robot into Her Home? , 2012, ICSR.

[52]  M. Law,et al.  Participation in the occupations of everyday life. , 2002, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[53]  Amedeo Cesta,et al.  Addressing the Long-term Evaluation of a Telepresence Robot for the Elderly , 2016, ICAART.