Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Learning with Educational Companion Robots? Toward Attitudes on Education Robots, Predictors of Attitudes, and Application Potentials for Education Robots

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

Abstract

Previous research on attitudes toward robots has emphasized the aspect of cultural differences regarding the acceptance of social robots in everyday life. Existing work has also focused on the importance of various other factors (e.g., demographic variables, interest in science and technology, prior robot experience) that predict robot acceptance. Specific robot types like service or healthcare robots have also been investigated. Nevertheless, more research is needed to substantiate the empirical evidence on the role of culture, robot type, and other predictors when researching attitudes toward robots. We did so by conducting a survey on attitudes toward education robots in the German context. Besides, in the present research, we investigated predictors of attitudes toward education robots. Contrary to previous findings, our results suggest that German respondents have neutral attitudes toward education robots. However, our data support the notion of relative reluctance to engage in learning processes that include robots. Regarding demographic variables and personality dispositions, our results show that gender, age, need for cognition , and technology commitment significantly predicted people’s attitudes. Concerning potential areas of application, respondents could picture using education robots in domains related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and rejected education robots in fields of arts and social sciences.

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. Aldebaran Soft Bank Group (2014) NAO. http://www.aldebaran.com/en/humanoid-robot/nao-robot. Accessed 26 Nov 2014

  2. European Commission (2012) Public attitudes towards robots. Special Eurobarometer 382. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/. Accessed 30 June 2014

  3. Reich N, Eyssel F (2013) Attitudes towards service robots in domestic environments. The role of personality characteristics, individual interests, and demographic variables. J Behav Robot 4:123–130

    Google Scholar 

  4. Meyer S (2011) Mein Freund der Roboter. Servicerobotik fuer aeltere Menschen - eine Antwort auf den demografischen Wandel? [My friend the robot. Service robotics for elderly - an answer to the demographic change?]. VDE, Berlin

  5. Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitudes towards robots. AI Soc 21:217–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arras KO, Cerqui D (2005) Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000-people survey. Technical report Nr. 0605–001, Autonomous systems lab, Swiss federal institute of technology, Lausanne, pp 1–38

  7. Kuo H, Rabindran JM, Broadbent E, Lee YI, Kerse N, Stafford, RMQ, MacDonald BA (2009) Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. In: 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Toyama, pp 214–219

  8. Halpern D, Katz JE (2012) Unveiling Robophobia and cyber-dystopianism: The role of gender, technology and religion on attitudes towards robots. In: 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Boston, pp 139–140

  9. Mavridis N, Katasaiti MS, Naef S, Falasi A, Nuaimi A, Araifi H, Kitbi A (2012) Opinions and attitudes toward humanoid robots in the Middle East. AI Soc 27:517–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114:864–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Waytz A, Morewedge CK, Epley N, Monteleone G, Gao JH, Cacioppo JT (2010) Making sense by making sentient: effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. J Personal Soc Psychol 99:410–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Epley N, Waytz A, Akalis S, Cacioppo JT (2008) When we need a human: motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Soc Cognition 26:143–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Epley N, Akalis S, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2008) Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychol Sci 19:114–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1982) The need for cognition. J Personal Soc Psychol 42:116–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Choi J, Lee J, Han J (2008) Comparison of cultural acceptability for educational robots between Europe and Korea. J Inf Process Syst 4:97–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Han J, Hyun E, Kim M, Cho H, Kanda T, Nomura T (2009) The cross-cultural acceptance of tutoring robots with augmented reality services. Int J Digit Content Technol Appl 3:95–102

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Serholt S, Barendregt W, Leite I, Hastie H, Jones A, Paiva, A, Vasalou A, Castellano G (2014) Teachers’ view on the use of empathic robotic tutors in the classroom. In: 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Edinburgh, pp 955–960

  18. Shin N, Kim S (2007) Learning about, from, and with robots: Students’ perspectives. In: 16th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication, Jeju, pp 1040–1045

  19. Lin YC, Liu TC, Chang M, Yeh SP (2009) Exploring children’s perceptions of the robots. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5670, pp 512–517

  20. Lee E, Lee Y, Kye B, Ko B (2008) Elementary and middle school teachers’, students’ and parents’ perception of robot-aided education in Korea. In: World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, Vienna, pp 175–183

  21. Liu EZF (2010) Early adolescents’ perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. Br J Educ Technol 41(3):E44–E47

  22. Aldebaran Soft Bank Group (2006) NAO, vol 2006

  23. Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Center of Intelligent Robotics (2010) Engkey

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

  25. Walters ML, Koay KL, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Boekhorst RT (2009) Preferences and perceptions of robot appearance and embodiment in human-robot interaction trials. In: Proceedings of New Frontiers in human–robot interaction: symposium at AISB09 convention, Edinburgh, pp 136–143

  26. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda K, Kato K (2006) Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Hatfield, pp 372–377

  28. Bless H, Wänke M, Bohner G, Fellhauer RF, Schwarz N (1994) Need for Cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Need for Cognition: a scale for measuring commitment and joy in problem solving]. Z Sozialpsychol 25:147–154

    Google Scholar 

  29. Neyer FJ, Felber J, Gebhardt C (2012) Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft (technology commitment) [Development and validation of a short technology commitment scale]. Diagnostica 58:87–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tsui K, Desai M, Yanco HA, Cramer H, Kemper N (2011) Measuring attitudes towards telepresence robots. Int J Intell Control Syst 16:113–123

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schermerhorn P, Scheutz M, Crowell CR (2008) Robot social presence and gender: do females view robots differently than males? In: 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, Amsterdam, pp 263–270

  33. Bray F (2013) Gender and technology. In: Wyer M, Barbercheck M, Cookmeyer D, Öztürk HÖ, Wayne M (eds) Women, science, and technology: a reader in feminist science studies, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York, pp 370–384

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015) The robot who tried too hard: social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In: 10th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Portland, pp 67–74

  35. Markus HR, Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev 98:224–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kitayama S, Markus HR, Matsumoto H, Norasakkunkit V (1997) Individual and collective process in the construction of the self: selfenhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. J Personal Soc Psychol 72:1245–1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen Y, Brockner J, Katz T (1998) Toward an explanation of cultural differences in in-group favoritism: the role of individual versus collective primacy. J Personal Soc Psychol 75:1490–1502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. The LEGO Group (1998) Lego Mindstorms, vol 1998

  39. Herberg JS, Behera DC, Saerbeck M (2013) Eliciting ideal tutor trait perception in robots: Pinpointing effective robot design space elements for smooth tutor interactions. In: 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Tokyo, pp 137–138

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology ‘CITEC’ (EXC 277) at Bielefeld University, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology, Bielefeld University, Inspiration 1, 33619, Bielefeld, Germany

    Natalia Reich-Stiebert

  2. New York University Abu Dhabi, P. O. Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Friederike Eyssel

Authors
  1. Natalia Reich-Stiebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friederike Eyssel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalia Reich-Stiebert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reich-Stiebert, N., Eyssel, F. Learning with Educational Companion Robots? Toward Attitudes on Education Robots, Predictors of Attitudes, and Application Potentials for Education Robots. Int J of Soc Robotics 7, 875–888 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation