Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attitudes Towards Robots Measure (ARM): A New Measurement Tool Aggregating Previous Scales Assessing Attitudes Toward Robots

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the forthcoming decade, interactions between humans and robots are expected to increase gradually. The attitudes that individuals hold towards robots will play a pivotal role in predicting their behavior towards these novel artificial agents, as well as their acceptance across multiple societal pillars. Despite the significant impact of attitudes on the success of human-robot interactions, no existing measure of attitudes towards humanoid robots currently meets the rigorous psychometric standards, particularly in terms of the percentage of variance explained. In this study, we introduce a new measure of attitudes towards robots (ARM), building upon previous scales on the topic, and provide evidence for the scale’s internal and external validity. Through three experiments, we selected the most reliable items pertaining to attitudes towards robots (derived from previous attitudes towards robots’ questionnaires), identified common factors, and tested the internal and external validity of the newly developed measure. Our findings reveal 15 items, underlying attitudes towards robots, divided into three primary factors: prior anxiety, prior acceptability, and prior anthropomorphism. We report the development and validation of the scale, and discuss the identified dimensions in relation to the literature on human-robot interactions and the psychology of robot perception.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data can be accessed at https://osf.io/4aduw/.

Notes

  1. Using orthogonal rotation (e.g. VARIMAX), we preserve the independence of the factors. With oblique rotation (e.g. OBLIMIN, PROMAX), we break it and factors are allowed to correlate.

References

  1. Research and Market (2020) Global Robotics Market (Impact of COVID-19) and Volume (Industrial and Service Robotics), Key Players Analysis - Forecast to 2025. https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4908125/

  2. Alemi M, Meghdari A, Ghazisaedy M (2015) The impact of Social Robotics on L2 Learners’ anxiety and attitude in English Vocabulary Acquisition. Int J Soc Robot 7:523–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-015-0286-Y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Spatola N, Wudarczyk OA (2021) Implicit attitudes towards Robots Predict Explicit Attitudes, Semantic Distance between Robots and humans, Anthropomorphism, and Prosocial Behavior: from Attitudes to Human–Robot Interaction. Int J Soc Robot 13:1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-020-00701-5/FIGURES/4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gnambs T, Appel M (2019) Are robots becoming unpopular? Changes in attitudes towards autonomous robotic systems in Europe. Comput Hum Behav 93:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Spatola N, Wykowska A (2021) The personality of anthropomorphism: how the need for cognition and the need for closure define attitudes and anthropomorphic attributions toward robots. Comput Hum Behav 122:106841. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2021.106841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sundar SS, Waddell TF, Jung EH (2016) The Hollywood robot syndrome: Media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp 343–350

  7. Anderson ML (2005) Why is AI so scary? Artif Intell 169:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2005.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Russell S (2016) Should we fear Supersmart Robots? Sci Am 314:58–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0616-58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Books P (2002) Flesh and machines. How robots will change us. Nelson 1–5. https://doi.org/loc?

  10. Turkle S, Taggart W, Kidd CD, Dasté O (2006) Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Conn Sci 18:347–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540090600868912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rau PLP, Li Y, Li D (2010) A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int J Soc Robot 2:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0056-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shibata T, Wada K, Ikeda Y, Sabanovic S (2009) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Adv Robot 23:443–458. https://doi.org/10.1163/156855309X408826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21:217–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nomura T, Kanda T, Kidokoro H et al (2016) Why do children abuse robots? Interaction StudiesInteraction Studies Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and. Artif Syst 17:347–369. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.02nom

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23:962–971. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.904904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 84:888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. MacDorman KF, Vasudevan SK, Ho CC (2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI Soc 23:485–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-008-0181-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interact StudiesInteraction Stud Social Behav Communication Biol Artif Syst 7:437–454. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.14nom

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bartneck C, Nomura T, Kanda T et al (2005) Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots. AISB’05 Convention: Social Intelligence and Interaction in Animals, Robots and Agents - Proceedings of the Symposium on Robot Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges in Robot-Human Interaction 1–4

  21. Peca A, Coeckelbergh M, Simut R et al (2016) Robot enhanced therapy for children with Autism Disorders: measuring ethical acceptability. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 35:54–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ninomiya T, Fujita A, Suzuki D, Umemuro H (2015) Development of the multi-dimensional robot attitude scale: Constructs of people’s attitudes towards domestic robots. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). pp 482–491

  23. Alves-Oliveira P, Ribeiro T, Petisca S et al (2015) An empathic robotic tutor for school classrooms: Considering expectation and satisfaction of children as end-users. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). pp 21–30

  24. Nomura T, Sugimoto K, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2012) Social acceptance of humanoid robots in Japan: A survey for development of the frankenstein syndorome questionnaire. In: IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots. pp 242–247

  25. Schaefer KE (2016) Measuring trust in human robot interactions: development of the trust perception scale-HRI. ” Springer, New-York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pütten ARV, Der, Bock N (2018) Development and validation of the Self-Efficacy in Human-Robot-Interaction Scale (SE-HRI). https://doi.org/10.1145/3139352. ACM Trans Hum Robot Interact

  27. European Commission (2012) Eurobarometer Special 382: Public Attitudes towards Robots

  28. Krägeloh CU, Bharatharaj J, Sasthan Kutty SK et al (2019) Questionnaires to measure acceptability of Social Robots: a critical review. Robotics 8:88. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics8040088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Albarracin D, Shavitt S (2018) Attitudes and attitude change. Annu Rev Psychol

  30. Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML (2009) The Negative Attitudes Towards Robots Scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live Human-Robot Interaction study. In: Adaptive and Emergent Behaviour and Complex Systems - Proceedings of the 23rd Convention of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, AISB 2009. pp 109–115

  31. Piçarra N, Giger JC, Pochwatko G, Gonçalves G (2015) Validation of the portuguese version of the negative Attitudes towards Robots Scale. Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee 65:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bartneck C, Nomura T, Kanda T et al (2005) A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. In: Proceedings of the HCI International. pp 1981–1983

  33. Pochwatko G, Giger JC, Różańska-Walczuk M et al (2015) Polish version of the negative attitude toward robots scale (NARS-PL). J Autom Mob Rob Intell Syst 9:65–72. https://doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS_3-2015/25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaplan F (2004) Who is afraid of the Humanoid? Investigating Cultural differences in the Acceptance of Robots. Int J Humanoid Rob 01:465–480. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219843604000289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Olson MA, Kendrick RV (2012) Attitude Formation. In: Encyclopedia of Human Behavior: Second Edition. pp 230–235

  36. Nordberg EP, Ten Eyck GA, Stalford HL et al (2009) Enhancement-mode double-top-gated metal-oxide-semiconductor nanostructures with tunable lateral geometry. In: Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics

  37. Spatola N, Wudarczyk O (2020) Implicit attitudes towards Robots Predict Explicit Attitudes, Semantic Distance between Robots and humans, Anthropomorphism, and Prosocial Behavior: from Attitudes to Human–Robot Interaction. Int J Soc Robot 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00701-5

  38. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: Proceedings - IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. pp 372–377

  39. Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Patience A et al (2012) Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australas J Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2011.00551.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ebel KH (1987) The impact of industrial robots on the world of work. Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8493(87)90034-9

  41. Nørskov M (2017) Technological dangers and the potential of human-robot interaction: a philosophical investigation of fundamental epistemological mechanisms of discrimination. Boundaries, Potential, Challenges, In: Social Robots

    Google Scholar 

  42. ML G, M L (1979) Effects of anxiety on attitudes–a semantic differential study. Br J Med Psychol 52:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-8341.1979.TB02504.X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Grupe DW, Nitschke JB (2013) Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2013 14:7 14:488–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3524

  44. Wason PC (1960) On the failure to eliminate Hypotheses in a conceptual Task. Q J Experimental Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. MacCoun RJ (1998) Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annu Rev Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Koriat A, Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B (1980) Reasons for confidence. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. De Graaf M, Ben Allouch S, Van Dijk J (2017) Why Do They Refuse to Use My Robot?: Reasons for Non-Use Derived from a Long-Term Home Study. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp 224–233

  49. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Parasuraman A (2000) Technology Readiness Index (Tri): a multiple-item Scale to measure readiness to Embrace New Technologies. J Serv Res 2:307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bröhl C, Nelles J, Brandl C et al (2016) TAM reloaded: a technology acceptance model for human-robot cooperation in production systems. In: Communications in Computer and Information Science

  52. Roesler E, Manzey D, Onnasch L (2021) A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction. Sci Robot 6:eabj5425. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abj5425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing Human: A three-factor theory of Anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114:864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Fisher JA (1991) Disambiguating anthropomorphism: an interdisciplinary review. Perspect Ethol 9:49–85

    Google Scholar 

  55. Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Chakrabarti B, Robinson P (2008) How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI’09. pp 245–246

  56. Spatola N, Belletier C, Normand A et al (2018) Not as bad as it seems: when the presence of a threatening humanoid robot improves human performance. Sci Robot 3:eaat5843. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Spatola N, Belletier C, Chausse P et al (2019) Improved Cognitive Control in Presence of Anthropomorphized Robots. Int J Soc Robot 11:463–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-00511-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Spatola N, Monceau S, Ferrand L (2019) Cognitive impact of Social Robots: how Anthropomorphism boosts Performances. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 27:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2019.2928823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Riether N, Hegel F, Wrede B, Horstmann G (2012) Social facilitation with social robots? In: HRI’12 - Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp 41–47

  60. Wiese E, Wykowska A, Zwickel J, Müller HJ (2012) I see what you Mean: how attentional selection is shaped by ascribing intentions to others. PLoS ONE 7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045391

  61. Wykowska A, Wiese E, Prosser A, Müller HJ (2014) Beliefs about the minds of others influence how we process sensory information. PLoS ONE 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094339

  62. Martín-Forés I, Martín-López B, Montes C (2013) Anthropomorphic factors influencing spanish conservation policies of vertebrates. Int J Biodivers 2013:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/142670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM (2007) Dimensions of mind perception. Science (1979) 315:619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475

  64. Cabrera-Nguyen P (2010) Author guidelines for reporting Scale Development and Validation results in the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. J Soc Social Work Res 1:99–103. https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2010.8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Diamantopoulos A, Sarstedt M, Fuchs C et al (2012) Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. J Acad Mark Sci 40:434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11747-011-0300-3/FIGURES/4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2009) Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: A suggested toolkit. In: Proceedings - IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. pp 528–533

  70. Schreiber JB, Stage FK, King J et al (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. Journal of Educational Research

  71. Kim JJ, Lee MJ, Han H (2020) Smart Hotels and sustainable consumer behavior: testing the Effect of Perceived Performance, attitude, and Technology Readiness on Word-of-mouth. IJERPH 17:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  72. Gao J, Ren L, Yang Y et al (2022) The impact of artificial intelligence technology stimuli on smart customer experience and the moderating effect of technology readiness. Int J Emerg Markets 17:1123–1142. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-06-2021-0975/FULL/XML

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Zhong L, Verma R, Wei W et al (2022) Multi-stakeholder perspectives on the impacts of service robots in urban hotel rooms. Technol Soc 68:101846. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2021.101846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME (2013) Psychological Testing and Assessment An introduction to tests and measurement (9th ed.)

  75. Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T (2018) Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Australasian J Paramedicine. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC (1974) When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull 81:358–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Cerny BA, Kaiser HF (1977) A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivar Behav Res 12:43–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. IBM (2011) IBM Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure for identity correlation matrix. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

  79. Hendrickson AE, White PO (1964) PROMAX: A QUICK METHOD FOR ROTATION TO OBLIQUE SIMPLE STRUCTURE. Br J Stat Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1964.tb00244.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Maxwell AE, Harman HH (2006) Modern factor analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A. https://doi.org/10.2307/2343736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Gorsuch RL (1990) Common factor analysis versus component analysis: some well and little known facts. Multivar Behav Res 25:33–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Unwin A (2013) Discovering Statistics using R by Andy Field. Jeremy Miles, Zoë Field

    Google Scholar 

  83. Spatola N, Kühnlenz B, Cheng G (2020) Perception and evaluation in human-robot interaction: the Human-Robot Interaction evaluation scale (HRIES) – a multicomponent approach of anthropomorphism. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00667-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Meade AW, Craig SB (2012) Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol Methods 17:437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Galesic M, Bosnjak M (2009) Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opin Q 73:349–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Mavletova A (2013) Data Quality in PC and Mobile web surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev 31:725–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313485201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Müller BCN, Gao X, Nijssen SRR, Damen TGE (2020) I, Robot: how human appearance and mind attribution relate to the Perceived Danger of Robots. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00663-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Haslam N (2006) Dehumanization: an integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10:252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Ferrari F, Paladino MP, Jetten J (2016) Blurring human–machine distinctions: anthropomorphic appearance in Social Robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. Int J Soc Robot 8:287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0338-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Spatola N, Urbanska K (2019) God-like robots: the semantic overlap between representation of divine and artificial entities. AI Soc 35:329–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00902-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Stein CM, Morris NJ, Hall NB, Nock NL (2017) Structural equation modeling. In: Methods in Molecular Biology. http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/

  92. Kline RB (2015) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications, New York, NY

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  93. Jackson DL, Gillaspy JA, Purc-Stephenson R (2009) Reporting Practices in Confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods 14:6–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Houwer J (2005) What are implicit measures and why are we using them? In: Handbook of Implicit Cognition and Addiction. pp 11–28

  95. Di Cesare G, Vannucci F, Rea F et al (2020) How attitudes generated by humanoid robots shape human brain activity. Sci Rep 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73728-3

  96. Bentler PM (1995) Eq. 6 structural equations Program Manual. Multivariate Software, Encino, CA

    Google Scholar 

  97. Wood P (2008) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research

  98. Loehlin JC, Beaujean AA (2016) Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis, fifth edition. Taylor & Francis, London, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  99. Mishra M (2016) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as an Analytical technique to assess measurement error in Survey Research. Paradigm 20:97–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890716672933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New-Jersey

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  101. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. MPR-online 8:23–74

    Google Scholar 

  102. Schuenemeyer JH, Murtagh F, Heck A (1989) Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA

    Google Scholar 

  103. Brunner M, Süß HM (2005) Analyzing the reliability of multidimensional measures: an example from intelligence research. Educ Psychol Meas 65:227–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268669

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  104. Bohner G, Dickel N (2011) Attitudes and attitude change. Annu Rev Psychol 62:391–417. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T et al (2011) Attitudes toward robots and factors influencing them. pp 73–88

  106. Bröhl C, Nelles J, Brandl C et al (2019) Human–Robot collaboration Acceptance Model: development and comparison for Germany, Japan, China and the USA. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00593-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P (2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn Sci 11:77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Spatola N (2020) Would you turn off a robot because it confronts you with your own mortality? In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp 61–68

  109. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Mothes C, Polavin N (2020) Confirmation Bias, Ingroup Bias, and Negativity Bias in Selective exposure to political information. Communic Res 47:104–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217719596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation Bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2:175–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Albarracin D, Shavitt S (2018) Attitudes and attitude change. Annu Rev Psychol 69:299–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Lemaignan S, Fink J, Dillenbourg P (2014) The dynamics of anthropomorphism in robotics. In: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp 226–227

  113. Reich-Stiebert N, Eyssel F, Hohnemann C (2019) Involve the user! Changing attitudes toward robots by user participation in a robot prototyping process. Comput Hum Behav 91:290–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Altered attitudes of people toward robots: investigation through the negative Attitudes toward Robots Scale. Proc AAAI-06 workshop on human implications of Human-Robot Interact 29–35

  115. Savela N, Turja T, Oksanen A (2018) Social Acceptance of Robots in different Occupational Fields: a systematic literature review. Int J Soc Robot 10:493–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-017-0452-5/METRICS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Spatola N, Belletier C, Normand A et al (2018) Not as bad as it seems: when the presence of a threatening humanoid robot improves human performance. Sci Robot 3:5843. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Spatola N, Kühnlenz B, Cheng G (2021) Perception and evaluation in Human–Robot Interaction: the Human–Robot Interaction evaluation scale (HRIES)—A Multicomponent Approach of Anthropomorphism. Int J Social Rob 2021 13:7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-020-00667-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Spatola N, Monceau S, Ferrand L (2020) Cognitive impact of Social Robots: how Anthropomorphism boosts Performances. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 27:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2019.2928823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Koverola M, Kunnari A, Sundvall J, Laakasuo M (2022) General Attitudes towards Robots Scale (GAToRS): a new instrument for social surveys. Int J Soc Robot 14:1559–1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-022-00880-3/TABLES/10

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Artimon Perspectives, 8 rue de la victoire, Paris, France

    Nicolas Spatola

  2. IU International University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany

    Olga A. Wudarczyk

  3. Department of Media Informatics, Ryukoku University, Kyoto, Japan

    Tatsuya Nomura

  4. Laboratoire CleRMa, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont, France

    Emna Cherif

Authors
  1. Nicolas Spatola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olga A. Wudarczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tatsuya Nomura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emna Cherif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas Spatola.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spatola, N., Wudarczyk, O.A., Nomura, T. et al. Attitudes Towards Robots Measure (ARM): A New Measurement Tool Aggregating Previous Scales Assessing Attitudes Toward Robots. Int J of Soc Robotics 15, 1683–1701 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01056-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01056-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation