research-article

Open access

On the Intention to Use the Pepper Robot as Communication Channel in a Business Context: Results of a User Acceptance Survey

Authors:

Christina Schmidbauer,

Sebastian SchlundAuthors Info & Claims

HAI '20: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction

Pages 204 - 211

https://doi.org/10.1145/3406499.3415062

Published: 10 November 2020 Publication History

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a user acceptance survey (based on the Technology Acceptance Model ? TAM) of the humanoid social robot Pepper as a communication channel in different information retrieval scenarios in a business context. In total, 239 passers-by participated in the survey, which had a specific focus on the impact of perceived safety and security aspects. The results revealed a positive assessment of its perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. It also showed how safety, data protection, and privacy concerns impact the intention to use the robot. The study findings are supported by the outcomes of eight expert interviews.

References

[1]

Willem Pieterson, Wolfgang Ebbers, and Christian Østergaard Madsen. 2017. New channels, new possibilities: A typology and classification of social robots and their role in multi-channel public service delivery. In Proceedings of Electronic Government (EGOV 2017), 47--59.

[2]

Markus Blut, Cheng Wang, and Klaus Schoefer. 2016. Factors influencing the acceptance of self-service technologies. Journal of Service Research 19, 4 (2016), 396--416.

[3]

Jenny van Doorn, Martin Mende, Stephanie M Noble, John Hulland, Amy L Ostrom, Dhruv Grewal, and J Andrew Petersen. 2017. Domo Arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social presence in organizational frontlines and customers? service experiences. Journal of Service Research 20, 1 (2016), 43--58.

[4]

Manfred Langen and Sabrina Heinrich. 2019. Humanoid Robots: Use Cases as AI-Lab Companion: Can an empathic and collaborative digital companion motivate innovation? In IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Valbonne Sophia-Antipolis, France (2019), 1--6.

[5]

Nicola Doering, Sandra Poeschl, Horst-Michael Gross, Andreas Bley, Christian Martin, and Hans-Joachim Boehme. 2015. User-Centered Design and Evaluation of a Mobile Shopping Robot. International Journal of Social Robotics 7 (2015) 203--255.

[6]

Dylan F Glas, Satoru Satake, Florent Ferreri, Takayuki Kanda, Norihiro Hagita, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2013. The Network Robot System: Enabling Social Human-Robot Interaction in Public Spaces. Journal of Human- Robot Interaction 1, 2 (2012), 5--32.

Digital Library

[7]

Yamato Iwamura, Masahiro Shiomi, Takayuki Kanda, Norihio Hagita, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2011. Do elderly people prefer a conversational humanoid as a shopping assistant partner in supermarkets? In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI), Lausanne, Switzerland (2011), 449--457.

Digital Library

[8]

Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Zenta Miyashita, Norihiro Hagita, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2010. A communication robot in a shopping mall. In IEEE Transactions on Robotics 26, 5 (2010) 897--913.

Digital Library

[9]

Wolfgang Ebbers, Willem Pieterson, and H. Noordman. 2008. Electronic government: Rethinking channel management strategies. Government Information Quarterly 25, 2 (2008), 181--201.

[10]

Manuel Rey-Moreno, Cayetano Medina-Molina, and Ramon Barrera-Barrera. 2018. Multichannel strategies in public services: levels of satisfaction and citizens? preferences. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 15, 1 (Mar 2018), 9--24.

[11]

Vangelis Karkaletsis, Stasinos Konstantopoulos, Dimitris Bilidas, Athanasios Tegos, Ion Androutsopoulos, Gerasimos Lampouras, Prodromos Malakasiotis, Panos Trahanias, and Haris Baltzakis. 2012. Natural interaction with personality and dialogue enabled robots. In Proceedings Hellenic Artificial Intelligence Conference (SETN), ser. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 6040, Athens, Greece, (May 2010).

[12]

Andrea Bauer, Klaas Klasing, Georgios Lidoris, Quirin Mühlbauer, Florian Rohrmüller, Stefan Sosnowski, Tingting Xu, Kolja Ku?hnlenz, Dirk Wollherr, and Martin Buss. 2009. The autonomous city explorer: Towards natural human-robot interaction in urban environments. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 2 (2009), 127--140.

[13]

Astrid Weiss, Judith Igelsbock, Manfred Tscheligi, Andrea Bauer, Kolja Kuhnlenz, Dirk Wollherr, and Martin Buss. 2010. Robots asking for directions: The willingness of passers-by to support robots. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI), Osaka, Japan (2010), 23--30.

[14]

Denise Hebesberger, Tobias Koertner, Christoph Gisinger, Juergen Pripfl, and Christina Dondrup. 2016. Lessons learned from the deployment of a long-term autonomous robot as companion in physical therapy for older adults with dementia: A mixed methods study. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI), Christchurch, New Zealand (2016), 27--34.

[15]

Rudolph Triebel, Kai Arras, Rachid Alami, Lucas Beyer, Stefan Breuers, Raja Chatila, Mohamed Chetouani, Daniel Cremers, Vanessa Evers, Michelangelo Fiore, Hayley Hung, Omar A Islas Ramirez, Michiel Joosse, Harmish Khambhaita, Tomasz P Kucner, Bastian Leibe, Achim J Lilienthal, Timm Linder, Manja Lohse, Martin Magnusson, Billy Okal, Luigi Palmieri, Umer Rafi, Marieke MJW van Rooij, and Lu Zhang. 2015. Spencer: A socially aware service robot for passenger guidance and help in busy airports. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Field and Service Robotics (FSR), (2015).

[16]

Junya Nakanishi, Itaru Kuramoto, Jun Baba, Ogawa Kohei, Yuichiro Yoshikawa, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2018. Can a Humanoid Robot Engage in Heartwarming Interaction Service at a Hotel? In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI´18), Southhampton, United Kingdom (2018), 45--53.

Digital Library

[17]

Beatrice Alenljung, Jessica Lindblom, Rebecca Andreasson, and Tom Ziemke. 2017. User experience in social human-robot interaction. International Journal of Ambient Computing and Intelligence (IJACI) 8, 2 (2017), 12. 4018/IJACI.2017040102.

Digital Library

[18]

Oliver Klosa. 2016. Online-Sehen, Qualität und Akzeptanz von Web-TV, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden (2016). ISBN: 978-3-658-15181-2.

[19]

Fred D Davis, Richard Bagozzi, and Paul R Warshaw. 1989. User Acceptance of Computer Technology A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science 35, 8 (1989), 982--1003.

[20]

Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G Morris, Gordon B Davis, and Fred D Davis. 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly 27, 3 (2003), 425--478.

[21]

Sung-En Chien, Li Chu, Hsing-Hao Lee, Chien-Chun Yang, Fo-Hui Lin, Pei-Ling Yang, Te-Mei Wang, and Su-Ling Yeh. 2019. Age Difference in Perceived Ease of Use, Curiosity, and Implicit Negative Attitude toward Robots. In ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 8, 2 (2019), Article 9.

Digital Library

[22]

Christina Bröhl, Jochen Nelles, Christopher Brandl, Alexander Mertens, and Christopher M Schlick. 2016. TAM reloaded: a technology acceptance model for human-robot cooperation in production systems. In 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.

[23]

Kasper Hornbaek, and Morten Hertzum. 2017. Technology Acceptance and User Experience: A Review of the Experiential Component in HCI. In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 24, 5 (2017) Article 33.

Digital Library

[24]

Marcel Heerink, Ben Kröse, Vanessa Evers, and Bob Wielinga. 2010. Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model. International Journal of Social Robotics 2 (2010), 361--375.

[25]

Christoph Lutz, Aurelia Tamo-Larrieux. 2020. The Robot Privacy Paradoc: Understanding How Privacy Concers Shape Intentions to Use Social Robots. Human-Machine Communication 1 (2020), 87--111.

[26]

Min Kyung Lee, Karen P. Tang, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler. 2011. Understanding Users´ Perception of Privacy in Human-Robot Interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI), Lausanne, Switzerland (2011), 181--182.

Digital Library

[27]

Leila Takayama. 2009. Towards a science of robotics: Goals and standards for experimental research. In RSS workshop on good experimental methodology in robotics (2009).

[28]

Christina Bröhl, Jochen Nelles, Christopher Brandl, Alexander Mertens, and Verena Nitsch. 2019. Human-Robot Collaboration Acceptance Model: Development and Comparison for Germany, Japan, China and the USA. International Journal of Social Robotics 11 (2019), 709--726.

[29]

Astrid Weiss, Nicola Mirnig, Ulrike Bruckenberger, Ewald Strasser, Manfred Tscheligi, Barbara Kühnlenz, Dirk Wollherr, and Bartlomiej Stanczyk. 2015. The Interactive Urban Robot: User-centered development and final field trial of a direction requesting robot. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 1 (2015), 42--56.

[30]

James E. Young, Ja-Young Sung, Amy Voida, Ehud Sharlin, Takeo Igarashi, Henrik Christensen, and Rebecca Grinter. 2011. Evaluating human-robot interaction: Focusing on the holistic interaction experience. International Journal on Social Robotics 3, 1 (2011), 53--67.

[31]

Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human--robot interaction. In Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: Biological sciences 362, 1480 (2007), 679--704.

[32]

Jonathan Vitale, Meg Tonkin, Sarita Herse, Suman Ojha, Jesse Clark, Mary-Anne Williams, Xun Wang, Willian Judge. 2018. Be More Transparent and Users Will Like You: A Robot Privacy and user Experience Design Experiment. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI), Chicago, IL, USA (2018), 379--387.

Digital Library

[33]

Tanja Zigart, Sebastian Schlund. 2020. Evaluation of Augmented Reality Technologies in Manufacturing - A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE), (2020).

Cited By

Kusnirakova DBangui HBuhnova B(2025)Exploring Robot Acceptance Across Domains Considering Trust and Social Aspects: A SurveyInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-025-01217-6Online publication date: 11-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-025-01217-6
Pande DTaeihagh A(2024)A governance perspective on user acceptance of autonomous systems in SingaporeTechnology in Society10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102580(102580)Online publication date: May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102580
Çalişkan GSevim B(2023)Use of service robots in hospitality: An observational study in terms of technology acceptance modelTourism and Hospitality Research10.1177/14673584231198438Online publication date: 5-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584231198438
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

On the Intention to Use the Pepper Robot as Communication Channel in a Business Context: Results of a User Acceptance Survey
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods
      1. Field studies

Recommendations

Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking

With the improvement of mobile technologies and devices, banking users are able to conduct banking services at anyplace and at anytime. Recently, many banks in the world have provided mobile access to financial information. The reason to understand what ...
Examining students' intention to continue using blogs for learning

This study is designed to investigate factors influencing undergraduate students' continuance intention to use blogs for learning in a management information systems course. Constructs from three theoretical frameworks, i.e., social-cognitive theory, ...
Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model

Much previous research has established that perceived ease of use is an important factor influencing user acceptance and usage behavior of information technologies. However, very little research has been conducted to understand how that perception forms ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

HAI '20: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction

November 2020

304 pages

ISBN:9781450380546

DOI:10.1145/3406499

General Chairs:
Mohammad Obaid
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
,
Omar Mubin
Western Sydney University, Australia
,
Yukie Nagai
The University of Tokyo, Japan
,
Program Chairs:
Hirotaka Osawa
University of Tsukuba, Japan
,
Yomna Abdelrahman
Bundeswehr University Munich, Germany
,
Morten Fjeld
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 November 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Infineon Technologies Austria AG
(BMK)-endowed professorship 'Human Centered Cyber Physical Production and Assembly Systems'
TU Wien

Conference

HAI '20

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

HAI '20: 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction

November 10 - 13, 2020

Virtual Event, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 121 of 404 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
659
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)190
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)20

Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kusnirakova DBangui HBuhnova B(2025)Exploring Robot Acceptance Across Domains Considering Trust and Social Aspects: A SurveyInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-025-01217-6Online publication date: 11-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-025-01217-6
Pande DTaeihagh A(2024)A governance perspective on user acceptance of autonomous systems in SingaporeTechnology in Society10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102580(102580)Online publication date: May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102580
Çalişkan GSevim B(2023)Use of service robots in hospitality: An observational study in terms of technology acceptance modelTourism and Hospitality Research10.1177/14673584231198438Online publication date: 5-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584231198438
Chatzopoulos AKalogiannakis MPapadakis SPapoutsidakis M(2022)A Novel, Modular Robot for Educational Robotics Developed Using Action Research Evaluated on Technology Acceptance ModelEducation Sciences10.3390/educsci1204027412:4(274)Online publication date: 12-Apr-2022
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12040274
Schneider S(2021)Soziale Roboter im öffentlichen RaumSoziale Roboter10.1007/978-3-658-31114-8_21(401-416)Online publication date: 5-Nov-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31114-8_21

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten