Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Older People’s Prior Robot Attitudes Influence Evaluations of a Conversational Robot

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

Abstract

As the population ages, healthcare robots may help meet increasing demands for mental and physical health services. However more understanding is required of how to make robots acceptable to older people. This study aimed to assess how older peoples’ robot attitudes and drawings were related to their reactions to a conversational robot. We also assessed whether altering the robot’s virtual face affected peoples’ responses. Twenty participants aged over 55 conversed with a Peoplebot robot for 30 min. During the interaction the robot displayed six different face conditions on its monitor in a randomized order. The six robot conditions varied on two dimensions; (i) facial appearance (humanlike, machinelike, or no face), and (ii) robot gender. Measures included the robot attitudes scale, drawings of a robot’s face prior to the interaction, blood pressure (BP), heart rate, and evaluations of the robot. Results suggest participants did not evaluate the robot’s six face displays conditions differently. However, there was a trend for men to evaluate the robot more highly than women did. Participants’ positive attitudes towards robots before the robot interactions were associated with positive robot evaluations after the interactions. Larger drawings were associated with higher systolic BP after interacting with the robot. These findings suggest that, at least in the short-term, people’s pre-existing mental models of robots may be more important for acceptance than the human or machinelikeness, or even the presence of a robot’s virtual face. More research is needed on gender differences in reactions to eldercare robots. Compared with creating different robot faces to meet individual preferences, promoting positive attitudes towards robots may be a cost-effective method of promoting robot acceptance. Drawings of robots may be a useful, more implicit way of assessing anxiety towards robots in potential users.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hancock GA, Reynolds T, Woods B, Thornicroft G, Orrell M (2003) The needs of older people with mental health problems according to the user, the carer, and the staff. Int J Geriatr Psychiatr 18(9):803–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sargen M, Hooker RS, Cooper RA (2011) Gaps in the supply of physicians, advance practice nurses, and physician assistants. J Am Coll Surg 212(6):991–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mahoney R (1997) Robotic products for rehabilitation: status and strategy. In: International conference on rehabilitation robotics, Bath, pp 12–22

  4. Broadbent E, Lee YI, Stafford RQ, Kuo IH, MacDonald BA (2011) Mental schemas of robots as more human-like are associated with higher blood pressure and negative emotions in a human–robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 3(3):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gray K, Wegner DM (2012) Feeling robots and human zombies: mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125(1): 125–130

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mukai T, Onishi M, Odashima T, Hirano S, Luo Z (2008) Development of the tactile sensor system of a human–interactive robot ’RI-MAN’. IEEE Trans Robot 24(2):505–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stafford R, MacDonald BA, Broadbent E (2012) Identifying specific reasons behind unmet needs may inform more specific eldercare robot design. In: International conference on social robotics, Chengdu, pp 148–157

  8. Walters K, Iliffe S, Orrell M (2001) An exploration of help-seeking behaviour in older people with unmet needs. Fam Pract 18(3): 277–282

    Google Scholar 

  9. Horrocks S, Somerset M, Stoddart H, Peters TJ (2004) What prevents older people from seeking treatment for urinary incontinence? A qualitative exploration of barriers to the use of community continence services. Fam Pract 21(6):689–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Banks MR, Willoughby LM, Banks WA (2008) Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. J Am Med Dir Assoc 9(3):173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wada K, Shibata T, Musha T, Kimura S (2005) Effects of robot therapy for demented Repatients evaluated by EEG. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 1552–1557

  12. Robinson H, MacDonald BA, Kerse N, Broadbent E (2013) The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14(9):661–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dakim (2012) Dakim BrainFitness Software 2012 [online]. Retrieved from http://www.dakim.com/about-brain-fitness/professional-brain-fitness/, visited Jan 2012

  14. Andrews G, Cuijpers P, Craske MG, McEvoy P, Titov N (2010) Computer therapy for the anxiety and depressive disorders is effective, acceptable and practical health care: a meta-analysis. Public Libr Sci (PLoS) ONE 5(10):e13196

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kidd CD, Taggart W, Turkle SA (2006) A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. Proceedings of 2006 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). Florida, pp 3972–3976

  16. Wu YH, Fassert C, Rigaud AS (2011) Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issues and beyond. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 54(1):121–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Joinson AN (2001) Self-disclosure in computer mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. Eur J Soc Psychol 31(2):177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rogers WA, Fisk AD (2010) Toward a psychological science of advanced technology design for older adults. J Gerontol Ser B 65(6):645–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ezer N, Fisk A, Rogers W (2009) Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. Universal access in HCI intell and ubiquitous, interaction environments, pp 39–48

  20. Nomura T, Takeuchi S (2011) The elderly and robots: from experiments based on comparison with younger people. In: Workshops at the twenty-fifth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

  21. Stafford RQ, Broadbent E, Jayawardena C, Unger U, Kuo IH, Igic A, Wong R, Kerse N, Watson C, MacDonald BA (2010) Improved robot attitudes and emotions at a retirement home after meeting a robot. In: Proceedings of the RO-MAN 2010 IEEE international symposium on robots and human interaction, Viareggio, pp 82–87

  22. Beer JM, Smarr CA, Chen TL, Prakash A, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2012) The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, Massachusetts, pp 335–342

  23. 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(3):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tapus A, Mataric M (2008) Socially assistive robotic music therapist for maintaining attention of older adults with cognitive impairments. In: Proceedings of AAAI fall symposium on AI in eldercare: new solutions to old problems

  25. Davis FD (1993) User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man-Mach Stud 38(1):475–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bagozzi RP (2007) The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(4):244–254

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stafford RQ, Broadbent E, Jayawardena C, Unger U, Kuo IH, Igic A, Wong R, Kerse N, Watson C, MacDonald BA (2010) Improved robot attitudes and emotions at a retirement home after meeting a robot. In: RO-MAN 2010 IEEE international symposium in robot and human interactive communication, Viareggio, pp 82–87

  29. Stafford RQ, MacDonald BA, Jayawardena C, Wegner DM, Broadbent E (2013) Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int J Soc Robot:1–16. doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0186-y

  30. Breazeal C (2000) Sociable machines: expressive social exchange between humans and robots. Doctor of Science thesis, MIT. Retrieved from: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/lbr/hrg/2000/phd.pdf. Visited May 2012

  31. Paepcke S, Takayama L (2010) Judging a bot by its cover: an experiment on expectation setting for personal robots. In: 2010 Proceedings of IEEE conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). Osaka, pp 45–52

  32. Hong SJ, Thong JYL, Tam KY (2006) Understanding continued information technology usage behavior: a comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet. Decis Support Syst 42(3):1819–1834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation confirmation model. MIS Q 25(3): 351–370

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sanders T, Oleson KE, Billings DR, Chen JYC, Hancock PA (2011) A model of human-robot trust. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. SAGE Publications, London, pp 1432–1436

  35. Schaefer KE, Sanders TL, Yordon RE, Billings DR, Hancock PA (2012) Classification of robot form: factors predicting perceived trustworthiness. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. SAGE Publications, London, pp 1548–1552

  36. Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):177–190

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35

    Google Scholar 

  38. DiSalvo CF, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. Paper presented 4th conference on designing interactive system, pp 321–326

  39. Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Kerse N, Knock B, Patience A, MacDonald B (2009) Retirement home staff and residents’ preferences for healthcare robots. Paper presented at the 18th IEEE international symposium robot and human interactive communications, Japan

  40. Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Giuliani MV, Pecora F, Scopelliti M, Tiberio L (2007) Psychological implications of domestic assistive technology for the elderly. Psychnology 5(3):229–252

    Google Scholar 

  41. Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: RO-MAN The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Milbrae, CA, pp 55–60

  42. Hanson D (2006) Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots. In: ICCS/Cognitive Science Symposium, Citeseer, pp 16–20

  43. Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 7(3):425–478

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schermerhorn P, Scheutz M, Crowell CR (2008) Robot social presence and gender: do females view robots differently than males? In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM IEEE international conferencre on HRI. Amsterdam, pp 263–270

  46. Siegel M, Breazeal C, Norton MI (2009) Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: Proceedings of 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2563–2568

  47. Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Bobinger S, de Ruiter L, Hegel F (2012) ‘If you sound like me, you must be more human’: on the interplay of robot and user features on human-robot acceptance and anthropomorphism. In: Proceedings of 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on HRI, pp 125–126

  48. Bernstein BL, Hofmann B, Wade P (1987) Preferences for counselor gender: students’ sex role, other characteristics, and type of problem. J Couns Psychol 34(1):2040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bethel CL, Murphy RR (2010) Review of human studies methods in HRI and recommendations. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Ellis CJ, Ying J, Gamble G (2004) A picture of health—myocardial infarction patients’ drawings of their hearts and subsequent disability: a longitudinal study. J Psychosom Res 57(6):583–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Broadbent E, Ellis CJ, Gamble G, Petrie KJ (2006) Changes in patient drawings of the heart identify slow recovery after myocardial infarction. Psychosom Med 68(6):910–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ekman P (1992) An argument for basic emotions. Cognit Emot 6(3):169–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. O’Dell JW, Dickson J (1984) Eliza as a “therapeutic” tool. J Clin Psychol 40(4):942–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Microsoft (2012) Text-to-speech service. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb483084.aspx. Accessed Dec 04

  55. Broadbent E, Kuo IH, Lee YI, Rabindran J, Kerse N, Stafford R, MacDonald BA (2010) Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot. Telemed e-Health 16(5):608–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lee JD, See KA (2004) Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergonomic Soc 46(1):50–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kuo IH, Rabindran JM, Broadbent E, Lee YI, Kerse N, Stafford RMQ, MacDonald BA (2009) Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE international symposium on HRI communications, RO-MAN 2009, pp 214–219

  58. Heerink M, Kröse B, Wielinga B, Evers V (2008) Enjoyment intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In: 3rd international conference on human–robot interaction, Amsterdam. ACM, New York, NY, pp 113–12045

  59. Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C (2006) Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the Roomba vacuum in the home. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction 2006. ACM, p 265

  60. Hanson D, Olney A, Prilliman S, Mathews E, Zielke M, Hammons D, Fernandez R, Stephanou H (2005) Upending the uncanny valley. In: Proceedings of AAAI national conference on artificial intelligence, pp 24–31

  61. Kaptein A, Zandstra T, Scharloo M, Vogel J, Broadbent E, Hughes B, Godefroy W, Van der Mey A (2011) ‘A time bomb ticking in my head’: drawings of inner ears by patients with vestibular schwannoma. Clin Otolaryngol 36(2):183–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Bartneck C, Verbunt M, Mubin O, Al Mahmud A (2007) To kill a mockingbird robot. In: Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on HRI, pp 81–87

  63. Caine KE, Fisk AD, Rogers WA (2006) Benefits and privacy concerns of a home equipped with a visual sensing system: a perspective from older adults. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 2006. SAGE Publications, London, pp 180–184

  64. Callari TC, Ciairano S, Re A (2012) Elderly-technology interaction: accessibility and acceptability of technological devices promoting motor and cognitive training. Work: a journal of prevention. Assess Rehabil 41:362–369

    Google Scholar 

  65. Chen TL, Kemp CC (2010) Lead me by the hand: evaluation of a direct physical interface for nursing assistant robots. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human–Robot interaction. IEEE Press, New York, pp 367–374

  66. Kiesler S, Goetz J (2002) Mental models of robotic assistants. Extended abstracts of the conference on human factors in computing systems. Minneapolis, pp 576–577

  67. Daleboudt GMN, Broadbent E, Berger SP, Kaptein AA (2011) Illness perceptions in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and proliferative lupus nephritis. Lupus 20(3):290–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. De Vente W, Olff M, Van Amsterdam J, Kamphuis J, Emmelkamp P (2003) Physiological differences between burnout patients and healthy controls: blood pressure, heart rate, and cortisol responses. Occup Environ Med 60(suppl 1):i54–i61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bainbridge W (2011) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Intl J Soc Robot 3(1):41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Kidd CD, Breazeal C (2010) Comparison of social presence in robots and animated characters. MIT. http://pubs.media.mit.edu/pubs/papers/CHI-final.pdf. Accessed 30th April

  71. Tapus A, Tapus C, Mataric M (2010) The role of physical embodiment of a therapist robot for individuals with cognitive impairments. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2009. RO-MAN, pp 103–107

  72. Fraunhofer (2012) Care-O-bot research news. http://www.care-o-bot-research.org/news Accessed 3rd June 2013

  73. Yujin Robot (2007) Yujin Robot Company Overview. Retrieved from http://www.yujinrobot.eu/yujin%20robot%20company%20overview(2).pdf, visited June 2013

  74. IMSS (2012) Companiable mobile robot companion—smart home. http://www.companionable.net/. Visited July 2013

  75. Pollack ME, Brown L, Colbry D, Orosz C, Peintner B, Ramakrishnan S, Engberg S, Matthews JT, Dunbar-Jacob J, McCarthy CE (2002) Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In: AAAI workshop on automation as eldercare, Edmonton, pp 85–91

  76. Gross H-M, Boehme H, Schröter C, Mueller S, Koenig A, Einhorn E, Martin C, Merten M, Bley A (2009) TOOMAS: interactive shopping guide robots in everyday use-final implementation and experiences from long-term field trials. In: Proceedings of the IROS IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robot and systems, pp 2005–2012

  77. Broadbent E, Kumar V, Li X, Sollers J, Stafford RQ, MacDonald BA, Wegner DM (2013) Robots with display screens: a robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PLoS ONE 8(8):e72589

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Medicine, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Rebecca Q. Stafford & Elizabeth Broadbent

  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Bruce A. MacDonald

  3. Tru-Test Group Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand

    Xingyan Li

Authors
  1. Rebecca Q. Stafford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce A. MacDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xingyan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth Broadbent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Q. Stafford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stafford, R.Q., MacDonald, B.A., Li, X. et al. Older People’s Prior Robot Attitudes Influence Evaluations of a Conversational Robot. Int J of Soc Robotics 6, 281–297 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0224-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0224-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation