skip to main content
10.1145/3434073.3444662acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Theoretical and Empirical Reflection on Technology Acceptance Models for Autonomous Delivery Robots

Published: 08 March 2021 Publication History

Abstract

In this work, we provide an argument and first empirical insights that existing technology acceptance models fall short when it comes to explaining spontaneous, unplanned and unsolicited encounters between humans and delivery robots on the street. Since technology acceptance models have been defined by the technology's perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and behavioural intention to use, they are not well suited to explain acceptance in situations in which humans meet robots without any prior intention to use. Nevertheless, acceptance of delivery robots might be a driving force for safe navigation. Thus, the concept of acceptance should not be limited to its current focus on (planned) usage. In consequence, we i) expand the understanding of technology acceptance, ii) propose the concept of Existence Acceptance for autonomous systems, and iii) explore a new model for acceptance in an online study (n = 185). Theoretical considerations hint towards the relevance of existence acceptance models for autonomous systems.

References

[1]
Saleh Alharbi and Steve Drew. 2014. Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics' behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 5, 1 (2014), 143--155.
[2]
Markus Barth, Philipp Jugert, and Immo Fritsche. 2016. Still underdetected -- Social norms and collective efficacy predict the acceptance of electric vehicles in Germany. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 37 (2016), 64--77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.11.011
[3]
Jenay M. Beer, Akanksha Prakash, Tracy L. Mitzner, and Wendy A. Rogers. [n.d.]. Understanding robot acceptance.
[4]
Hiroyuki Kidokoro, Yoshitaka Suehiro, and Takayuki Kanda. 2015. Escaping from Children's Abuse of Social Robots. In HRI'15, Julie A. Adams, William Smart, Bilge Mutlu, and Leila Takayama (Eds.). ACM, Associaton for Computing Machinery, [New York], 59--66. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454. 2696468
[5]
Andrew Burton-Jones and Geoffrey S. Hubona. 2006. The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 43, 6 (2006), 706--717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.03.007
[6]
Colleen M. Carpinella, Alisa B. Wyman, Michael A. Perez, and Steven J. Stroessner. 2017. The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS). In HRI'17, Bilge Mutlu, Manfred Tscheligi, Astrid Weiss, and James E. Young (Eds.). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 254--262. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020208
[7]
Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly (1989), 319--340.
[8]
Mark H. Davis. 1980. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. (1980).
[9]
Stef de Groot. 2019. Pedestrian Acceptance of Delivery Robots: Appearance, interaction and intelligence design. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technical University of Delft.
[10]
P. Ekman. 1992. Are there basic emotions? Psychological review 99, 3 (1992), 550--553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033--295x.99.3.550
[11]
P. Ekman. 1999. Basic Emotions. Handbook of Cognition and Emotion (1999). https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10028162696/
[12]
Raafat George Saadé and Dennis Kira. 2006. The Emotional State of Technology Acceptance. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 3 (2006), 529--539. https://doi.org/10.28945/913
[13]
Mahtab Ghazizadeh, Yiyun Peng, John D. Lee, and Linda Ng Boyle. 2012. Augmenting the Technology Acceptance Model with Trust: Commercial Drivers' Attituteds towards Monitoring and Feedback. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2286--2290. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1071181312561481
[14]
A. Grencikova and S. Vojtovic. 2017. Relationship of generations X, Y, Z with new communication technologies. Problems and perspectives in management 15, Iss. 2 (cont. 3) (2017), 557--563.
[15]
Bill C. Hardgrave, Fred D. Davis, and Cynthia K. Riemenschneider. 2003. Investigating Determinants of Software Developers' Intentions to Follow Methodologies. Journal of Management Information Systems 20, 1 (2003), 123--151. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045751
[16]
Marcel Heerink. 2011. Exploring the Influence of Age, Gender, Education and Computer Experience on Robot Acceptance by Older Adults. In 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 147--148. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6281268&tag=1
[17]
Marcel Heerink, Ben Kröse, Vanessa Evers, and Bob Wielinga. 2009. Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. RO-MAN 2009-The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (2009), 528--533.
[18]
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, 4 (2010), 361--375.
[19]
Charlie Hewitt, Ioannis Politis, Theocharis Amanatidis, and Advait Sarkar. 2019. Assessing Public Perception of Self-Driving Cars: The Autonomous Vehicle Acceptance Model. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 518--527. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302268
[20]
Moritz Körber. 2019. Theoretical Considerations and Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Trust in Automation. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing), Sebastiano. Bagnara, Riccardo. Tartaglia, Sara. Albolino, Thomas. Alexander, and Yushi. Fujita (Eds.). Springer International Publishing and Imprint and Springer, Cham, 13--30.
[21]
Nick Lavars. 23.1.2019. Starship's autonomous food-toting robots begin $2 deliveries for hungry students. New Atlas (23.1.2019). https://newatlas.com/starshiprobots-deliveries-campus/58164/
[22]
Maartje M.A. de Graaf and Somaya Ben Allouch. 2013. Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and autonomous systems 12, 61 (2013), 1476--1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007
[23]
Karl F. MacDorman, Sandosh K. Vasudevan, and Chin-Chang Ho. 2009. Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI & SOCIETY 23, 4 (2009), 485--510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-008-0181-2
[24]
Nikola Maranguni? and Andrina Granic. 2015. Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society 14, 1 (2015), 81--95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1
[25]
Maslin Masrom. 2007. Technology acceptance model and e-learning. Technology 21, 24 (2007), 81.
[26]
MobileGeeks Deutschland. 2016. Die Zukunft der Logistik: Von Lieferdrohnen & Robotern. https://www.mobilegeeks.de/artikel/spezial-lieferdrohnenlieferroboter-zukunft-logistik/
[27]
Isabel Neumann, Peter Cocron, Thomas Franke, and Josef F. Krems. 2010. ELECTRIC VEHICLES AS A SOLUTION FOR GREEN DRIVING IN THE FUTURE? A FIELD STUDY EXAMINING THE USER ACCEPTANCE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES. European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, 2nd, 2010, Berlin, Germany (2010), 445--453.
[28]
Tatsuya Nomura, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroyoshi Kidokoro, Yoshitaka Suehiro, and Sachie Yamada. 2016. Why do children abuse robots? Interaction Studies 17, 3 (2016), 347--369. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.02nom
[29]
Sangjo Oh, Joongho Ahn, and Beomsoo Kim. 2003. Adoption of Broadband Internet in Korea: The Role of Experience in Building Attitudes. Journal of Information Technology 18, 4 (2003), 267--280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268396032000150807
[30]
Sebastian Osswald, Daniela Wurhofer, Sandra Trösterer, Elke Beck, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2012. Predicting Information Technology Usage in the Car: Towards a Car Technology Acceptance Model. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Portsmouth, NH, USA, 51--58.
[31]
Praveena Penmetsa, Emmanuel Kofi Adanu, Dustin Wood, Teng Wang, and Steven L. Jones. 2019. Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles -- A snapshot of vulnerable road user opinion. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 143 (2019), 9--13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.02.010
[32]
Anat Rafaeli and Iris Vilnai-Yavetz. 2004. Emotion as a Connection of Physical Artifacts and Organizations. Organization Science 15, 6 (2004), 671--686. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034769
[33]
Robin P Horton, Tamsin Buck, Patrick E Waterson, and Chris W Clegg. 2001. Explaining intranet use with the technology acceptance model. Journal of Information Technology 16, 4 (2001), 237--249. https://doi.org/10.1080/02683960110102407
[34]
Astrid Rosenthal-von der Pütten, David Sirkin, Anna M. H. Abrams, and Laura Platte. 2020. The Forgotten in HRI: Incidental Encounters with Robots in Public Spaces. HRI '20 Companion, March 23--26, 2020, Cambridge, United Kingdom. (2020).
[35]
Statista. 2020. Durchschnittsalter der Bevölkerung in Deutschland nach Staatsangehörigkeit 2019 | Statista. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/723069/umfrage/durchschnittsalter-der-bevoelkerung-in-deutschland-nachstaatsangehoerigkeit/
[36]
Dag Sverre Syrdal, Kerstin Dautenhahn, Kheng Lee Koay, and Michael L. Walters. 2009. The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. Adaptive and emergent behaviour and complex systems (2009).
[37]
Anthony Turner. 2015. Generation Z: Technology and social interest. The journal of individual Psychology 71, 2 (2015), 103--113.
[38]
Viswanath Venkatesh and Fred D. Davis. 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science 46, 2 (2000), 186--204.
[39]
Deutsche Welle. 2020. Eure Pakete werden bald von kleinen Robotern geliefert | DW | 12.09.2016. https://www.dw.com/de/eure-pakete-werden-bald-vonkleinen-robotern-geliefert/a-19531328
[40]
Jochen Wirtz, Paul G. Patterson, Werner H. Kunz, Thorsten Gruber, Vinh Nhat Lu, Stefanie Paluch, and Antje Martins. 2018. Brave new world: service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management (2018).
[41]
Jakub Zotowski, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Christoph Bartneck. 2017. Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources: International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 100, 48--54. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHCS.2016.12.008

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Robot Acceptance and Service Quality in Food Delivery: An Expanded TAM-based StudyInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2024.2445112(1-16)Online publication date: 20-Jan-2025
  • (2025)Understanding service robot adoption and resistance from a service provider perspectiveTechnological Forecasting and Social Change10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123885210(123885)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2024)Requirements for automated micro-vehicles from the German public: a survey studyEuropean Transport Research Review10.1186/s12544-024-00695-516:1Online publication date: 9-Dec-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
HRI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
March 2021
425 pages
ISBN:9781450382892
DOI:10.1145/3434073
  • General Chairs:
  • Cindy Bethel,
  • Ana Paiva,
  • Program Chairs:
  • Elizabeth Broadbent,
  • David Feil-Seifer,
  • Daniel Szafir
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 the author(s) 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

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 March 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. acceptance
  2. autonomous robot
  3. autonomous vehicle
  4. delivery robot
  5. ea
  6. existence acceptance
  7. incops
  8. tam
  9. technology acceptance
  10. technology acceptance model

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)

Conference

HRI '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

HRI '25
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
March 4 - 6, 2025
Melbourne , VIC , Australia

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)355
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)37
Reflects downloads up to 10 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Robot Acceptance and Service Quality in Food Delivery: An Expanded TAM-based StudyInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2024.2445112(1-16)Online publication date: 20-Jan-2025
  • (2025)Understanding service robot adoption and resistance from a service provider perspectiveTechnological Forecasting and Social Change10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123885210(123885)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2024)Requirements for automated micro-vehicles from the German public: a survey studyEuropean Transport Research Review10.1186/s12544-024-00695-516:1Online publication date: 9-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Understanding the Interaction between Delivery Robots and Other Road and Sidewalk Users: A Study of User-generated Online VideosACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/367761513:4(1-32)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Delivering the Future: Understanding User Perceptions of Delivery RobotsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36536878:CSCW1(1-24)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
  • (2024)Should I Help a Delivery Robot? Cultivating Prosocial Norms through ObservationsExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3650855(1-7)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Podscape: Exploring the Comfort Level with Pods in Pedestrian Spaces through Immersive SimulationExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3650776(1-7)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)How Culture Shapes What People Want From AIProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642660(1-15)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)Can you let me go? Exploring Delivery Robots' Verbal Response to Physical Bullying and its Impact on Perceived Safety, Comfort, Acceptability, and Existence Acceptance by Co-Present IndividualsCompanion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610978.3640582(994-998)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Towards Balancing Preference and Performance through Adaptive Personalized ExplainabilityProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3610977.3635000(658-668)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media