Abstract
This article presents the results of a literature review and empirical analysis of factors that may influence human perceptions and attitudes toward non-anthropomorphic robots in public spaces. Using data from self-report surveys of 170 adults in a U.S. southeastern state, we examined demographic, attitudinal, and contextual differences in perceptions of mechanical-appearing robots in public settings. Within the limitations of the sample under study, the findings suggest that although important gender, race, age, and contextual differences were uncovered, adults were largely accepting of mechanical-appearing robots in public environments and this acceptance varied little across demographic factors. Additionally, adults were also curious about the potential that robots have to assist humans in those environments. Implications for future research are also presented.
References
Bartneck C, Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2005) Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots. In: Social intelligence and interaction in animals, robots and agents (AISB’05)—proceedings of the symposium on robot companions: hard problems and open challenges in robot–human interaction, pp 1–4. SSAISB 2005 convention
Bartneck C, Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kennsuke K (2005) A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. In: The 11th international conference on human–computer interaction
Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of peoples culture and prior experiences with aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21(1–2):217–230
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: 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI 2012), pp 335–342. doi:10.1145/2157689.2157806
Bergstrom N, Kanda T, Miyashita T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2008) Modeling of natural human–robot encounters. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2008). IEEE, pp 2623–2629. doi:10.1109/IROS.2008.4650896
Bethel CL (2009) Robots without faces: non-verbal social human–robot interaction. Dissertation, University of South Florida
Bethel CL, Murphy RR (2008) Survey of non-facial/non-verbal affective expressions for appearance-constrained robots. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C 38(1):83–92
Bureau C (2010) United states census bureau quick facts for mississippi. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/28
Caraian S, Kirchner N, Colborne-Veel P (2015) Moderating a robot’s ability to influence people through its level of sociocontextual interactivity. In: Tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 2696489, pp 149–156. doi:10.1145/2696454.2696489
Cha E, Forlizzi J, Srinivasa SS (2015) Robots in the home: qualitative and quantitative insights into kitchen organization. In: Tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 2696465, pp 319–326. doi:10.1145/2696454.2696465
Commission E (2012) Public attitudes towards robots. Report, European Commission
Datta C, Kapuria A, Vijay R (2011) A pilot study to understand requirements of a shopping mall robot. In: ACM (ed.) ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 127–128. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957694
de Graaf MM, Allouch SB (2013) Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robot Auton Syst 61(12):1476–1486. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007
Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864
Evans JM (1994) Helpmate: an autonomous mobile robot courier for hospitals. In: IEEE/RSJ/GI international conference on intelligent robots and systems ’94. ’Advanced Robotic Systems and the Real World’, IROS ’94, vol 3, pp. 1695–1700
Eyssel F, Loughnan, S (2013) It don’t matter if you’re black or white? In: International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer International Publishing, pp 422–431
Ezer N (2008) Is a robot an appliance, teammate, or friend? Age-related differences in expectations of and attitudes towards personal home-based robots, ProQuest, Georgia Institute of Technology
Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C (2006) Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In: 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1121286, pp 258–265. doi:10.1145/1121241.1121286
Gates B (2006) A robot in everyone home. Sci Am 296:58–65. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0107-58
Glas DF, Wada K, Shiomi M, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2013) Personal service: a robot that greets people individually based on observed behavior patterns. In: 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, 2447601, pp. 129–130
Hayashi K, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Shiomi M, Koizumi S, Ishiguro H, Ogasawara T, Hagita N (2007) Humanoid robots as a passive-social medium: a field experiment at a train station. In: ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1228735,pp 137–144. doi:10.1145/1228716.1228735
Heerink M (2011) Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In: 6th international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1957704, pp 147–148. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957704
Heyer C (2010) (IROS) Human–robot interaction and future industrial robotics applications. In: 2010 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 4749–4754. doi:10.1109/IROS.2010.5651294
Khan Z (1998) Attitudes towards intelligent service robots. Report, KTH Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science
Kidokoro H, Kanda T, Brscic D, Shiomi M (2013) Will i bother here? A robot anticipating its influence on pedestrian walking comfort. In: 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, 2447664, pp 259–266
Knightscope: (2015) Predict and prevent crime together...today—k5 robot. http://knightscope.com/about.html
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: 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2009). IEEE, pp 214–219. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326292
Mumm J, Mutlu B (2011) Human–robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human–robot interaction. In: 6th International conference on human–robot interaction (HRI ’11), ACM, pp 331–338. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957786
Murphy RR (2004) Human–robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 34(2):138–153
Mutlu B, Forlizzi J (2008) Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human–robot interaction. In: 3rd Annual ACM international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI08). ACM Press
Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153
Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI Soc 20(2):138–150. doi:10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7
Norman DA (2005) Robots in the home: what might they do? Interactions 12(2):65. doi:10.1145/1052438.1052473
Nourbakhsh IR, Kunz C, Willeke T (2003) The mobot museum robot installations: a five year experiment. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2003), vol 4, pp 3636–3641
Pantofaru C, Takayama L, Foote T, Soto B (2012) Exploring the role of robots in home organization. In: Seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 2157805, pp 327–334. doi:10.1145/2157689.2157805
Park E, Dallae J, del Pobil Pascual, Ferr n, (2012) The law of attraction in human-robot interaction. Int J Adv Robot Syst 9(35):1–7
Rosenthal-von der Putten AM, Kramer NC, Hoffman L, Sobieraj S, Eimler SC (2013) An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. Int J Soc Robot 5(1):17–34
Reeves B, Nass C (1998) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York
Scopelliti M, Giuliani MV, Fornara F (2005) Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Univ Access Inf Soc 4(2):146–155
Shibata T, Wada K, Ikeda Y, Sabanovic S (2009) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Adv Robot 23(4):443–458
Shiomi M, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Toshinori Ishi C, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2008) A semi-autonomous communication robot: a field trial at a train station. In: 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1349862, pp 303–310. doi:10.1145/1349822.1349862
Sims VK, Chin MG, Sushil DJ, Barber DJ, Ballion T, Clark BR, Garfield KA, Dolezal MJ, Shumaker R, Finkelstein N (2005) Anthropomorphism of robotic forms: a response to affordances? In: Human factors and ergonomics society 49th annual meeting—2005, pp 602–605
Sung JY, Guo L, Grinter RE, Christensen HI (2007) “my roomba is rambo”: intimate home appliances. In: 9th international conference on ubiquitous computing. Springer, 1771601, pp 145–162
Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2007) A personalized robot companion?—the role of individual differences on spatial preferences in hri scenarios. In: 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2007). IEEE, pp 1143–1148. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415252
Takayama L, Ju W, Nass C (2008) Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: What everyday people think robots should do. In: 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, 1349827, pp 25–32. doi:10.1145/1349822.1349827
Takayama L, Pantofaru C (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human–robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2009). IEEE, pp 5495–5502
Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926. http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Walters ML (1998) The design space for robot appearance and behaviour for social robot companions. Thesis, School of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Hertfordshire
Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Koay KL, Kaouri C, Woods S, Nehaniv C, Lee D, Werry I (2005) The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human–robot interaction experiment. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN 2005). IEEE, pp 347–352. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2005.1513803
Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Kaouri C, Boekhorst R, Nehaniv C, Werry I, Lee D (2005) Close encounters: spatial distances between people and a robot of mechanistic appearance. In: 2005 5th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots. IEEE, pp 450–455. doi:10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573608
Zawieska K, Duffy BR, Stroska A (2012) Understanding anthropomorphisation in social robotics. Pomiary Autom Robot 16(11):78–82
Acknowledgements
The authors thankfully acknowledge the following students and colleagues who contributed their efforts throughout the project: Ethan Hosea, Kayla Huddleston, Bryant Hutchins, Jeannice Louine, Jacob Mason, Ross McCool, John McGinley, Sarah Rogers, Richard Sween, Daniel Waddell, Jesse Williams, and Brianna Wright.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
May, D.C., Holler, K.J., Bethel, C.L. et al. Survey of Factors for the Prediction of Human Comfort with a Non-anthropomorphic Robot in Public Spaces. Int J of Soc Robotics 9, 165–180 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0390-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0390-7