Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Acceptability of Robot-Assisted Therapy for Children with Autism: A Survey From a Developing Country

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

Abstract

Little is known about people’s attitudes and expectations about using robots for children with autism on a global stage. To address this issue, we conducted an exploratory survey investigating the ethical acceptability of robot-assisted autism therapy in a developing country with respondents from Vietnam using the Ethical Acceptability Scale (EAS). We found that people in our sample have a higher positive view compared to European ones in a previous survey. However, they expressed certain concerns about robots replacing human therapists. In terms of robot appearances, they slightly preferred animal-like robots over human-like robots. Possible reasons can be low awareness and utilization of assistive technology for children with autism, influences from East Asian culture and audiovisual entertainment, and perceiving robots used in autism therapy as pets or toys. Additionally, we found no significant association between socio-demographic factors and the three EAS subscales. Our study contributes to a better understanding of how people from different social, cultural, and economic backgrounds perceive robot-assisted autism therapy, which is essential for designing ethical social robots and using them ethically.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Alcorn AM, Ainger E, Charisi V et al (2019) Educators’ views on using humanoid robots with autistic learners in special education settings in england. Front Robot AI 6:107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5, vol 5. American psychiatric association Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Aymerich-Franch L, Ferrer I (2021) Socially assistive robots’ deployment in healthcare settings: a global perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07404

  4. Bainbridge WA, Hart J, Kim ES, et al (2008) The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. In: RO-MAN 2008-The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE, pp 701–706

  5. Baxter P, Kennedy J, Senft E, et al (2016) From characterising three years of hri to methodology and reporting recommendations. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), IEEE, pp 391–398

  6. Belpaeme T (2020) Advice to new human-robot interaction researchers. Human-robot interaction. Springer, Newyork, pp 355–369

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Cao HL, Gómez Esteban P, Albert DB et al (2017) A collaborative homeostatic-based behavior controller for social robots in human-robot interaction experiments. Int J Soc Robot 9(5):675–690

  8. Cao HL, Esteban PG, Bartlett M et al (2019) Robot-enhanced therapy: Development and validation of supervised autonomous robotic system for autism spectrum disorders therapy. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 26(2):49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coeckelbergh M, Pop C, Simut R et al (2016) A survey of expectations about the role of robots in robot-assisted therapy for children with asd: ethical acceptability, trust, sociability, appearance, and attachment. Sci Eng Ethic 22(1):47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Colton MB, Ricks DJ, Goodrich MA et al (2009) Toward therapist-in-the-loop assistive robotics for children with autism and specific language impairment. Autism 24:25

    Google Scholar 

  11. Conti D, Di Nuovo S, Buono S et al (2017) Robots in education and care of children with developmental disabilities: a study on acceptance by experienced and future professionals. Int J Soc Robot 9(1):51–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Conti D, Cattani A, Di Nuovo S et al (2019) Are future psychologists willing to accept and use a humanoid robot in their practice? italian and english students’ perspective. Front psychol 10:2138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dautenhahn K (2003) Roles and functions of robots in human society: implications from research in autism therapy. Robotica 21(4):443–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Deng L, Rattadilok P (2020) The need for and barriers to using assistive technologies among individuals with autism spectrum disorders in china. Assis Technol 34(2):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  15. Diehl JJ, Schmitt LM, Villano M et al (2012) The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a critical review. Res Autism Spectr Disord 6(1):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Esteban PG, Baxter P, Belpaeme T et al (2017) How to build a supervised autonomous system for robot-enhanced therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder Paladyn,. J Behav Robot 8(1):18–38

    Google Scholar 

  17. Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ (2011) Socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):143–166

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Funabashi Y (1993) The asianization of asia. Foreign affairs pp 75–85

  20. Gnambs T, Appel M (2019) Are robots becoming unpopular? changes in attitudes towards autonomous robotic systems in europe. Comput Hum Behav 93:53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goldsmith TR, LeBlanc LA (2004) Use of technology in interventions for children with autism. J Early Intensive Behav Interv 1(2):166

    Google Scholar 

  22. Haring KS, Mougenot C, Ono F et al (2014) Cultural differences in perception and attitude towards robots. Int J Affect Eng 13(3):149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Haring KS, Silvera-Tawil D, Takahashi T, et al (2015) Perception of a humanoid robot: a cross-cultural comparison. In: 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, pp 821–826

  24. Haring KS, Silvera-Tawil D, Watanabe K, et al (2016) The influence of robot appearance and interactive ability in hri: a cross-cultural study. In: International conference on social robotics, Springer, pp 392–401

  25. Kaplan F (2004) Who is afraid of the humanoid? investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. Int J Hum Robot 1(03):465–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015) Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. Int J Soc Robot 7(2):293–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee KM, Jung Y, Kim J et al (2006) 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. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(10):962–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li D, Rau PL, Li Y (2010) A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int J Soc Robot 2(2):175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lim V, Rooksby M, Cross ES (2021) Social robots on a global stage: establishing a role for culture during human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 13(6):1307–1333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. MacDorman KF, Vasudevan SK, Ho CC (2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI Soc 23(4):485–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T et al (2008) What people assume about humanoid and animal-type robots: cross-cultural analysis between japan, korea, and the united states. Int J Hum Robot 5(01):25–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Odom SL, Thompson JL, Hedges S et al (2015) Technology-aided interventions and instruction for adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord 45(12):3805–3819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Olusanya BO, Davis AC, Wertlieb D et al (2018) Developmental disabilities among children younger than 5 years in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet Global Health 6(10):e1100–e1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Operto S (2019) Evaluating public opinion towards robots: a mixed-method approach. Paladyn, J Behav Robot 10(1):286–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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(2):54–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pop CA, Simut R, Pintea S et al (2013) Can the social robot probo help children with autism to identify situation-based emotions? a series of single case experiments. Int J Hum Robot 10(03):1350025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Porayska-Pomsta K, Frauenberger C, Pain H et al (2012) Developing technology for autism: an interdisciplinary approach. Person Ubiquit Comput 16(2):117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. R Core Team (2021) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/

  39. Revilla M, Ochoa C (2015) What are the links in a web survey among response time, quality, and auto-evaluation of the efforts done? Soc Sci Comput Rev 33(1):97–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ricks DJ, Colton MB (2010) Trends and considerations in robot-assisted autism therapy. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, IEEE, pp 4354–4359

  41. Robins B, Dautenhahn K, Te Boerkhorst R, et al (2004) Robots as assistive technology-does appearance matter? In: RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No. 04TH8759), IEEE, pp 277–282

  42. Rudovic O, Lee J, Mascarell-Maricic L et al (2017) Measuring engagement in robot-assisted autism therapy: a cross-cultural study. Front Robot AI 4:36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Saleh MA, Hanapiah FA, Hashim H (2021) Robot applications for autism: a comprehensive review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 16(6):580–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sandgreen H, Frederiksen LH, Bilenberg N (2021) Digital interventions for autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analysis. J Autism Dev Disord 51(9):3138–3152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Scassellati B (2007) How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. Robotics research. Springer, Newyork, pp 552–563

  46. Schrum ML, Johnson M, Ghuy M, et al (2020) Four years in review: Statistical practices of likert scales in human-robot interaction studies. In: Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp 43–52

  47. Shahid S, Krahmer E, Swerts M (2014) Child-robot interaction across cultures: how does playing a game with a social robot compare to playing a game alone or with a friend? Comput Hum Behav 40:86–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2011) Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):32–38

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  49. Sochanski M, Snyder K, Korneder J, et al (2021) Therapists’ perspectives after implementing a robot into autism therapy. In: 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, pp 1216–1223

  50. Swettenham J (1996) Can children with autism be taught to understand false belief using computers? J Child Psychol Psychiatry 37(2):157–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Thill S, Pop CA, Belpaeme T et al (2012) Robot-assisted therapy for autism spectrum disorders with (partially) autonomous control: Challenges and outlook. Paladyn 3(4):209–217

    Google Scholar 

  52. Van Herwegen J, Riby D (2014) Neurodevelopmental disorders: research challenges and solutions. Psychology Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Vuong QH, Bui QK, La VP et al (2018) Cultural additivity: behavioural insights from the interaction of confucianism, buddhism and taoism in folktales. Palgrave Commun 4(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wainer J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Shell DA, et al (2006) The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In: ROMAN 2006-The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, IEEE, pp 117–122

  55. Ward M, Meade AW (2018) Applying social psychology to prevent careless responding during online surveys. Appl Psychol 67(2):231–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Werry I, Dautenhahn K, Ogden B et al (2001) Can social interaction skills be taught by a social agent? the role of a robotic mediator in autism therapy. International conference on cognitive technology. Springer, Newyork, pp 57–74

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wolbring G, Yumakulov S (2014) Social robots: views of staff of a disability service organization. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):457–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Złotowski J, Khalil A, Abdallah S (2020) One robot doesn’t fit all: aligning social robot appearance and job suitability from a middle eastern perspective. AI Soc 35(2):485–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zubrycki I, Granosik G (2016) Understanding therapists’ needs and attitudes towards robotic support the roboterapia project. Int J Soc Robot 8(4):553–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work leading to these results has received funding from Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy (no. KY-06) and partially from the European Commission 7th Framework Program as a part of the project DREAM grant no. 611391.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brubotics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Flanders Make, Brussels, Belgium

    Hoang-Long Cao

  2. College of Engineering, Can Tho University, Can Tho, Vietnam

    Hoang-Long Cao, Hoang-Dung Nguyen & Chi-Ngon Nguyen

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Can Tho, Vietnam

    Thang Thien Tran, Thong Van Nguyen & Phuong Minh Nguyen

  4. Department of Psychiatry, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Tuan Van Nguyen

  5. Independent Researcher, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Vu Duc Truong

Authors
  1. Hoang-Long Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thang Thien Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thong Van Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Phuong Minh Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tuan Van Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vu Duc Truong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hoang-Dung Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chi-Ngon Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Hoang-Long Cao, Thang Thien Tran, and Vu Duc Truong. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Hoang-Long Cao and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hoang-Long Cao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The authors declare that this research was conducted in full accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the ethical committee of Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix A: Items and Factor Loadings for the three Ethical Acceptability Subscale Factors (Vietnamese)

Appendix A: Items and Factor Loadings for the three Ethical Acceptability Subscale Factors (Vietnamese)

  1. 1.

    Việc sử dụng robot trong trị liệu tự kỷ cho trẻ em là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  2. 2.

    Việc sử dụng robot trong y tế là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  3. 3.

    Việc sử dụng robot trong việc theo dõi tiến trình trị liệu và hỗ trợ quá trình chẩn đoán cho trẻ tự kỷ là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  4. 4.

    Việc robot tự ghi và lưu trữ thông tin khi giao tiếp với trẻ tự kỷ là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  5. 5.

    Việc robot hỗ trợ việc giao tiếp giữa trị liệu viên và trẻ tự kỷ là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  6. 6.

    Việc trẻ tự kỷ xem robot là bạn (một kết quả của quá trình trị liệu) là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  7. 7.

    Việc trẻ em trở nên gắn bó với robot là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  8. 8.

    Việc chế tạo robot có hình dáng giống con người là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  9. 9.

    Việc robot thay thế trị liệu viên để dạy kỹ năng cho trẻ tự kỷ là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  10. 10.

    Việc chế tạo robot có hình dáng giống các sinh vật giả tưởng là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  11. 11.

    Việc chế tạo robot có hình dáng giống đồ vật là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

  12. 12.

    Việc chế tạo robot có hình dáng giống các con vật là chấp nhận được về mặt đạo đức.

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

Cao, HL., Tran, T.T., Van Nguyen, T. et al. Ethical Acceptability of Robot-Assisted Therapy for Children with Autism: A Survey From a Developing Country. Int J of Soc Robotics 15, 1655–1664 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01060-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01060-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation