Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emotions and Attitudes of Older Adults Toward Robots of Different Appearances and in Different Situations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health (ICT4AWE 2020)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1387))

Abstract

The demographic change and the decrease of care personnel lead to the discussion to implement robots to support older adults. To ensure sustainable use, the solutions must be accepted. Technology Acceptance is dealt with in different models, but little attention has been paid to the emotions that older adults have toward service robots that support every day or care activities. The simulated robot study examined the positive and negative emotions and the attitudes of 142 older adults toward robots in different situations and with robots of different appearances. The situation influenced both emotions and attitudes. The older adults expressed more negative emotions and a more negative attitude in a care situation. In terms of appearance, less uncanniness and higher usage intention for the human-like and android robot were reported. The results contribute to a deeper understanding of robot acceptance and should be considered in the development of service robots for older adults in the future. Furthermore, the results should be validated in vivo with existing robots.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abbott, R., et al.: How do “robopets” impact the health and well-being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Int. J. Older People Nurs. 14(3), e12239 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agnihotri, R., Gaur, S.: Robotics: a new paradigm in geriatric healthcare. Gerontechnology 15(3), 146–161 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allouch, S.B., van Velsen, L.: Social robots for elderly care: an inventory of promising use cases and business models. Stud. Health Tech. Inf. 270, 1046–1050 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI200321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arnold, M.B.: Emotion and Personality. Columbia University Press, New York (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arras, K.O., Cerqui, D.: Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000-people survey. Autonomous Systems Lab, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, EPFL, Lausanne (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Atzmüller, C., Steiner, P.M.: Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology 6, 128–138 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Automation and Control Institute. https://www.acin.tuwien.ac.at/vision-for-robotics/roboter/romeo/. Accessed 01 Jan 2019

  8. Baisch, S., et al.: Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie 51(1), 16–24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-017-1346-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barata, A.N.: Social robots as a complementary therapy in chronic, progressive diseases. In: Sequeira, J.S. (ed.) Robotics in Healthcare. AEMB, vol. 1170, pp. 95–102. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24230-5_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G.J., Jonker, P., de Witte, L.: Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J. Am. Med. Directors Assoc. 13(2), 114-120.e1 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blow, M., Dautenhahn, K., Appleby, A., Nehaniv, C.L., Lee, D.: The art of designing robot faces – dimensions for human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, pp. 331–332. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121301

  12. Breyer, B., Bluemke, M.: Deutsche Version der Positive and Negative Affect Schedule PANAS (GESIS Panel). Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (2016). https://doi.org/10.6102/zis242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Broadbent, E.: Interactions with robots: the truths we reveal about ourselves. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68(1), 627–652 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 319 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, R., Kerse, N., Knock, B., Patience, A., MacDonald, B.: Retirement home staff and residents’ preferences for healthcare robots. In: The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Toyama, pp. 645–650. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Broekens, J., Heerink, M., Rosendal, H.: Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2), 94–103 (2009). https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2009.08.02.002.00

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chita-Tegmark, M., Ackerman, J.M., Scheutz, M.: Effects of assistive robot behavior on impressions of patient psychological attributes: vignette-based human-robot interaction study. J. Med. Internet Res. 21(6), e13729 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2196/13729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Compagna, D., Marquardt, M.: Zur Evaluation von Mensch-Roboter Interaktionen (MRI) – ein methodischer Beitrag aus soziologischer Perspektive. Working Papers kultur- und techniksoziologische Studien 3, p. 18. Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dahms, R., Haesner, M.: Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung 13(1), 46–52 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11553-017-0610-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Decker, M.: Ein Abbild des Menschen: Humanoide Roboter. In: Bölker, M., Gutmann, M., Hesse, W. (eds.) Information und Menschenbild, pp. 41–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04742-8_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. De Graaf, M., Allouch, S.M.: Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robot. Autonom. Syst. 61(12), 1476–1486 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. DiSalvo, C.F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S.: All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Process, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, London, pp. 321–326. ACM (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ebert, D.D., Christ, O., Berking, M.: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur emotionsspezifischen Selbsteinschätzung emotionaler Kompetenzen (SEK-ES). Diagnostica 59(1), 17–32 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eftring, H., Frennert, S.: Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie 49(4), 274–281 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1064-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V., Ellsworth, P.: What emotion categories or dimensions can observers judge from facial behavior? In: Ekman, P. (ed.) Emotion in the Human Face, pp. 39–55. Cambridge University Press, New York (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  28. European Commission: Special Eurobarometer 460. Attitudes towards the impact of digitisation and automation on daily life (2017). https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/ebs_460_en.pdf

  29. Eurostat.: Bevölkerungsstruktur und Bevölkerungsalterung (2019). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Population_structure_and_ageing/de#Der_Anteil_.C3.A4lterer_Menschen_nimmt_weiter_zu. Accessed 10 Aug 2020

  30. F&P PersonalRobotics. https://www.fp-robotics.com/de/service-robotics/. Accessed 21 Jan 2019

  31. Fan, L., Scheutz, M., Lohani, M., McCoy, M., Stokes, C.: Do we need emotionally intelligent artificial agents? First results of human perceptions of emotional intelligence in humans compared to robots. In: Beskow, J., Peters, C., Castellano, G., O'Sullivan, C., Leite, I., Kopp, S. (eds.) Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67401-8_15

  32. Federal Statistical Office: Ständige Wohnbevölkerung nach Alter, Geschlecht und Staatsangehörigkeitskategorie, 2010–2019 (2020). https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung/stand-entwicklung/alter-zivilstand-staatsangehoerigkeit.assetdetail.13707177.html

  33. Federal Statistical Office: Bildungsstand (2020). https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/wirtschaftliche-soziale-situation-bevoelkerung/gleichstellung-frau-mann/bildung/bildungsstand.html

  34. Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, (and Sex and Drugs and Rock ‘n’ Roll), 3rd edn. SAGE, London (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Flandorfer, P.: Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int. J. Population Res. 829835 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/829835

  36. Fraunhofer-Institut für Produktionstechnik und Automatisierung Homepage, https://www.care-o-bot.de/de/care-o-bot-3/download/videos.html. Accessed 10 Aug 2020

  37. Frijda, N.H.: The Emotions. Cambridge University Press, New York (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Forsa. Politik- und Sozialforschung GmbH: “Service-Robotik: Mensch-Technik-Interaktion im Alltag”. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Befragung. Berlin (2016). https://www.bmbf.de/files/BMBF_forsa_Robotik_FINAL2016.pdf

  39. Gaul, S., et al.: Technikakzeptanz als integraler Bestandteil der Entwicklung medizintechnischer Produkte. In: Ambient Assisted Living 2010: 3. Deutscher AAL-Kongress mit Ausstellung, Assistenzsysteme im Dienste des Menschen – zuhause und unterwegs, Tagungsbeitrag. Berlin (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Georgia Tech: Healthcare Robotics Lab. https://sites.gatech.edu/hrl/robotic-nurse-assistant/. Accessed 10 Aug 2020

  41. Goher, K.M., Mansouri, N., Fadlallah, S.O.: Assessment of personal care and medical robots from older adults’ perspective. Robot. Biomimetics 4(1), 1–7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40638-017-0061-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Graf, B., Heyer, T., Klein, B., Wallhoff, F.: Servicerobotik für den demografischen Wandel. Mögliche Einsatzfelder und aktueller Entwicklungsstand [Service robots in elderly care. Possible application areas and current state of developments]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 56(8), 1145–1152 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-013-1755-9

  43. Gray, J.A.: The Neuropsychology of Anxiety. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Grimm, J.: State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory nach Spielberger. Deutsche Lang- und Kurzversion. Methodenforum der Universität Wien: MF-Working Paper 2009/02 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hawley-Hague, H., Boulton, E., Hall, A., Pfeiffer, K., Todd, C.: Older adults’ perceptions of technologies aimed at falls prevention, detection or monitoring: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Informatics 83(6), 416–426 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2, 361–375 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ho, C.-C., MacDorman, K.F.: Measuring the uncanny valley effect. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 9(1), 129–139 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0380-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hung, L., et al.: The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot PARO in care settings: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 19(1), 232 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1244-6

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  49. Hwang, J., Park, T., Hwang, W.: The effects of overall robot shape on the emotions invoked in users and the perceived personalities of robot. Appl. Ergon. 44, 459–471 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Izard, C.E.: The Face of Emotion. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  51. James, W.: What is an emotion? Mind 9(34), 188–205 (1884)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Janke, W., Debus, G.: Die Eigenschafswörterliste: EWL; eine mehrdimensionale Methode zur Beschreibung von Aspekten des Befindens. Hogrefe Verlag für Psychologie, Göttingen (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Janowski, K., Ritschel, H., Lugrin, B., André, E.: Sozial interagierende Roboter in der Pflege. In: Bendel, O. (ed.) Pflegeroboter, pp. 63–87. Springer, Wiesbaden (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22698-5_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Jost, C., et al.: Human-Robot Interaction Evaluation methods and their standardization. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42307-0

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. Kätsyri, J., Förger, K., Mäkäräinen, M., Takala, T.: A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Front. Psychol. 6, 390 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kessler, J., Schroeter, C., Gross, H.-M.: Approaching a person in a socially acceptable manner using a fast marching planner. In: Jeschke, S., Liu, H., Schilberg, D. (eds.) ICIRA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7102, pp. 368–377. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25489-5_36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Kiesler, S., Hinds, P.: Introduction to this special issue on human-robot interaction. Human-Comput. Interact. 19, 1–8 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Koay, K.L., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Walters, M.L.: Empirical results from using a comfort level device in human-robot interaction studies. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 194–201 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Khosla, R., Nguyen, K., Chu, M.-T.: Human robot engagement and acceptability in residential aged care. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 33, 510–522 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1275435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Korchut, A., et al.: Challenges for service robots – requirements of elderly adults with cognitive impairments. Front. Neurol. 8, 228 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kuo, I.H., et al.: Age and gender factors in user accceptance of healthcare robots. In: The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robots and Human Interactive Communication, Toyama (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lang, G.: Zur Befragung und Befragbarkeit von kognitiv eingeschränkten und demenziell veränderten Menschen in Altern- und Pflegeheimen. In: Amann, A., Kolland, F. (eds.) Das erzwungene Paradies des Alters? Weitere Fragen an eine Kritische Gerontologie, pp. 207–215. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lauckner, M., Kobiela, F., Manzey, D.: ‘Hey robot, please step back!’ - Exploration of a spatial threshold of comfort for human-mechanoid spatial interaction in a hallway scenario. In: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Edinburgh, pp. 780–787 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926348

  64. Lehmann, S., Ruf, E., Misoch, S.: Robot use for older adults – attitudes, wishes and concerns. First results from Switzerland. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) HCII 2020. CCIS, vol. 1226, pp. 64–70. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50732-9_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Maalouf, N., Sidaoui, A., Elhajj, I.H., Asmar, D.: Robotics in nursing: a scoping review. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. Official Publ. Sigma Theta Tau Int. Honor Soc. Nurs. 50(6), 590–600 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. MacDorman, K.F., Chattopadhyay, D.: Reducing consistency in human realism increases the uncanny valley effect; increasing category uncertainty does not. Cognition 146, 190–205 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. MacDorman, K.F., Ishiguro, H.: The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact. Stud. 7, 297–337 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mara, M., Appel, M.: Roboter im Gruselgraben: Warum uns menschenähnliche Maschinen oft unheimlich sind. In-Mind Magazin 5. Medienpsychologie Teil 2: Medien, Nachrichten und wir (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Marek, K.D., Rantz, M.J.: Ageing in place: a new model for long-term care. Nurs. Adm. Q. 24(3), 1–1 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Mathur, M.B., Reichling, D.B.: Navigating a social world with robot partners: a quantitative cartography of the uncanny valley. Cognition 146, 22–32 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. McDougall, W.: An Introduction to Social Psychology. Luce, Boston (1926)

    Google Scholar 

  72. McGlynn, S.A., Kemple, S., Mitzner, T.L., King, C.A., Rogers, W.A.: Understanding the potential of PARO for healthy older adults. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 100, 33–47 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Mercay, C., Grünig, A.: Gesundheitspersonal in der Schweiz – Zukünftiger Bedarf bis 2030 und die Folgen für den Nachwuchsbedarf (Obsan Bulletin 12/2016). Schweizerisches Gesundheitsobservatorium, Neuchâtel (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Mies, C.: Akzeptanz von Smart Home Technologien: Einfluss von subjektivem Pflegebedarf und Technikerfahrung bei älteren Menschen. Untersuchung im Rahmen des Projekts «Accepting Smart Homes». Diplomarbeit., Wien (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Miklósi, Á., Korondi, P., Matellán, V., Gácsi, M.: Ethorobotics: a new approach to human-robot relationship. Front. Psychol. 8, 958 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Miraikan, National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation. https://www.miraikan.jst.go.jp/en/online/communication/profile/otonaroid.html?width=560&height=1534. Accessed 28 Jan 2019

  77. Misoch, S., Pauli, C., Ruf, E.: Technikakzeptanzmodelle: Theorieübersicht und kritische Würdigung mit Fokus auf ältere Nutzer/innen (60+). In: Weidner, R. (ed.) Technische Unterstützungssysteme, die die Menschen wirklich wollen, pp. 107–115. Konferenzband, Hamburg (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Mollenkopf, H., Kaspar, R.: Technisierte Umwelten als Handlungs- und Erlebensräume älterer Menschen. In: Backes, G.M., Clemens, W., Künemund, H. (eds.) Lebensformen und Lebensführung im Alter, pp. 193–221. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  79. Monathan, J.L.: I don’t know it but I like you – the influence of non-conscious affect on person perception. Hum. Commun. Res. 24(4), 480–500 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00428.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Mori, M.: The uncanny valley. Energy 7, 33–35 (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Mowrer, O.H.: Learning Theory and Behaviour. Wiley, New York (1960)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  82. Nitto, H., Taniyama, D., Inagaki, H.: Social acceptance and impact of robots and artificial intelligence. Findings of survey in Japan, the US and Germany. Nomura Research Institute (NRI Papers, 211) (2017). https://www.nri.com/-/media/Corporate/en/Files/PDF/knowledge/report/cc/papers/2017/np2017211.pdf?la=en&hash=A730998FD55F6D58DF95F3479E3B709FC8EF83F4

  83. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., Kato, K.: Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. AI Soc. 20(2), 138–150 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., Kato, K.: Prediction of human behavior in human-robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Trans. Rob. 24(2), 442–451 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Oatley, K., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cogn. Emot. 1, 29–50 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ortony, A., Turner, T.J.: What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychol. Rev. 97(3), 315–331 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Panksepp, J.: Toward a general psychobiological theory of emotions. Behav. Brain Sci. 5, 407–467 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Parviainen, J., Turja, T., Van Aerschot, L.: Robots and human touch in care: desirable and non-desirable robot assistance. In: Ge, S.S., Cabibihan, J.-J., Salichs, M.A., Broadbent, E., He, H., Wagner, A.R., Castro-González, Á. (eds.) ICSR 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11357, pp. 533–540. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05204-1_52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  89. Plutchik, R.: A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In: Plutchik, R., Kellerman, H. (eds.) Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience, Theories of Emotion, vol. 1., p. 31. Academic Press, New York (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  90. Prakash, A., Rogers, W.A.: Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: effects of human-likeness and task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(2), 309–331 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0269-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Pu, L., Moyle, W., Jones, C., Todorovic, M.: The effectiveness of social robots for older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Gerontologist 59(1), e37–e51 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Ray, C., Mondada, F., Siegwart, R.: What do people expect from robots? In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3816–3821. Nice (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  93. Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., Broadbent, E.: The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(4), 575–591 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0242-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C., Hoffmann, L., Sobieraj, S., Eimler, S.C.: An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5(1), 17–34 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  95. Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., et al.: Investigations on empathy towards humans and robots using fMRI. Comput. Hum. Behav. 33, 201–212 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  96. Ruf, E., Lehmann, S., Misoch, S.: Service robots: emotions of older adults in different situations. In: Guldemond, N., Ziefle, M., Maciaszek, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Internactional Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health, pp. 15–25 (2020). https://doi.org/10.5220/0009324500150025

  97. Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M.V., Fornara, F.: Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 4, 146–155 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Seibt, J., Nørskov, M., Schack Andersen, S.: What Social Robots Can and Should Do. Proceedings of Robophilosophy/TRANSOR. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  99. Seifert, A., Schelling, H.R.: Digitale Senioren. Nutzung von Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (IKT) durch Menschen ab 65 Jahren in der Schweiz im Jahr 2015. Pro Senectute Verlag, Zürich (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  100. Sixsmith, A., Gutmann, G.M.: Technologies for Active Aging, vol. 9. Springer, New York (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8348-0

  101. Stadelhofer, C.: Möglichkeiten und Chancen der Internetnutzung durch Ältere. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie 33, 186–194 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Steinert, A., Haesner, M., Tetley, A., Steinhagen-Thiessen, E.: Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung 10(4), 281–286 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11553-015-0510-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Steyer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., Notz, P., Eid, M.: Der Mehrdimensionale Befindlichkeitsfragebogen (MDBF) Handanweisung. Hogrefe, Göttingen (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  104. Strait, M.K., et al.: Understanding the uncanny: both atypical features and category ambiguity provoke aversion toward humanlike robots. Front. Psychol. 8, 1366 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Suwa, S., et al.: Exploring perceptions toward home-care robots for older people in Finland, Ireland, and Japan: a comparative questionnaire study. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 91, 104178 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.archger.2020.104178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. TelepresenceRobots. https://telepresencerobots.com/robosoft’s-kompai. Accessd 28 Jan 2019

    Google Scholar 

  107. Tomkins, S.S.: Affect theory. In: Scherer, K.R., Ekman, P. (eds.) Approaches to Emotion, pp. 163–195. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  108. Torta, E., et al.: Evaluation of a small socially-assistive humanoid robot in intelligent homes for the care of the elderly. J. Intell. Rob. Syst. 76(1), 57–71 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-013-0019-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Vaupel, J.: Setting the stage: a generation of centenarians? Washington Q. 23(3), 197–200 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39, 273–315 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46, 186–204 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Manage. Inf. Syst. Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Von Zerssen, D., Petermann, F.: Befindlichkeits-Skala. Revidierte Fassung (Bf-SR). Hogrefe (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Wachsmuth, I.: Robots like me: challenges and ethical issues in aged care. Front. Psychol. 9, 432 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Walters, M.L, Dautenhahn K., Te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D.S., Nehaniv, C.L.: An empirical framework for human-robot proxemics. In: Proceedings of the New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  116. Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R.: Preferences and perceptions of robot appearance and embodiment in human-robot interaction trials. In: Proceedings of New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  117. Walters, M.L., Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., te Boekhorst, R., Koay, K.L.: Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Auton. Robots 24(2), 159–178 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9058-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Watson, J.B.: Behaviorism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1930)

    Google Scholar 

  119. Weiner, B., Graham, S.: An attributional approach to emotional development. In: Izard, C.E., Kagan, J., Zajonc, R.B. (eds.) Emotions, Cognition, and Behavior, pp. 167–191. Cambridge University Press, New York (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  120. Wirtz, J., et al.: Brave new world: service robots in the frontline. J. Serv. Manage. 29, 907–931 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-201-0119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. World Health Organization: World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization, Geneva (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  122. World Health Organization: Global priority research agenda for improving access to high-quality affordable assistive technology. World Health Organization, Geneva (2017). https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254660/1/WHO-EMP-IAU-2017.02-eng.pdf

  123. Wu, Y.H., Fassert, C., Rigaud, A.S.: Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 54(1), 121–126 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2011.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Wu, Y.-H., Wrobel, J., Cornuet, M., Kerhervé, H., Damnée, S., Rigaud, A.-S.: Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human-robot interaction over a 1-month period in the living lab setting. Clin. Interv. Aging 9, 801–811 (2014). https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S56435

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Stiftung Suzanne und Hans Biäsch zur Förderung der Angewandten Psychologie funded the project. We thank the foundation for its support and thank the older adults who participated in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Ageing Research, OST Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences, Rosenbergstrasse 59, 9001, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Stephanie Lehmann, Esther Ruf & Sabina Misoch

Authors
  1. Stephanie Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esther Ruf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sabina Misoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Lehmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Martina Ziefle

  2. Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Nick Guldemond

  3. Institute of Business Informatics, Wrocław University of Economics, Wrocław, Poland

    Leszek A. Maciaszek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Lehmann, S., Ruf, E., Misoch, S. (2021). Emotions and Attitudes of Older Adults Toward Robots of Different Appearances and in Different Situations. In: Ziefle, M., Guldemond, N., Maciaszek, L.A. (eds) Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health. ICT4AWE 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1387. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70807-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70807-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-70806-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-70807-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation