Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Acceptance of Social Robots by Elder People: Does Psychosocial Functioning Matter?

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

Abstract

This study aims at investigating the relevance of psychosocial functioning for the acceptance of social robots by elder people in the context of everyday functioning. It was assumed that the level of psychosocial functioning either hinders or promotes robot acceptance, depending on the fit between elder people’s level of everyday functioning and the demands imposed by the robot (user–technology fit). To investigate this assumption, two social robots imposing different demands on the user, i.e., the easy-to-handle therapeutic robot Paro (low demands) and the less intuitive telepresence robot Giraff (high demands), were introduced successively to \(N=29\) cognitively and physically healthy elder people. To implement different levels of user–technology fit, participants rated their intention to use each robot for both a scenario of high and a scenario of low everyday functioning. Psychosocial functioning was assessed with emotional loneliness, depressive mood and life satisfaction as indicators of psychological well-being, and social support as indicator of social resources. Results show that lower social support was associated with higher acceptance of the less intuitive robot Giraff in the high everyday functioning scenario (adequate user–technology fit). In the low everyday functioning scenario (poor fit), however, lower psychological well-being was associated with lower acceptance of Giraff. For the rather intuitive robot Paro (adequate user–technology fit regardless of the level of everyday functioning), lower life satisfaction was associated with lower acceptance in both everyday functioning scenarios. The findings show the importance of psychosocial variables for the acceptance of social robots by elder people and underline the relevance of the fit between user and technology. Moreover, they suggest a more intense consideration of complex psychological mechanisms and individual user characteristics in research on robot acceptance by elder people.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fausset CB, Mayer AK, Rogers WA, Fisk AD (2009) Understanding aging in place for older adults: a needs analysis. Hum Fac Ergon Soc 53:521–525. doi:10.1177/154193120905300808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Oppenauer C (2009) Motivation and needs for technology use in old age. Gerontechnology 8:82–87. doi:10.4017/gt.2009.08.02.006.00

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pew Research Center (2014) Older adults and technology use. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/04/PIP_Seniors-and-Tech-Use_040314.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  4. Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Loutfi A (2013) A review of mobile robotic telepresence. Adv Hum Comput Interact. doi:10.1155/2013/902316

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kolling T, Haberstroh J, Kaspar R, Pantel J, Oswald F, Knopf M (2013) Evidence and deployment-based research into care for the elderly using emotional robots. Psychological, methodological and cross-cultural facets. GeroPsych 26:83–88. doi:10.1024/1662-9647/a000084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wahl H-W, Iwarsson S, Oswald F (2012) Aging well and the environment: toward an integrative model and a research agenda for the future. Gerontologist 52:306–313. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendahl H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8:94–103. doi:10.4017/gt.2009.08.02.002.00

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Orlandini A, Tiberio L (2012) Addressing the long-term evaluation of a telepresence robot for the elderly. In: Filipe J, Fred A (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international conference on agents and artificial intelligence, Portugal, pp 652–663

  9. Moyle W, Jones C, Cooke M, O’Dwyer S, Sung B, Drummond S (2014) Connecting the person with dementia and family: a feasibility study of a telepresence robot. BMC Geriatr. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-7

    Google Scholar 

  10. De Graaf MM, Ben Allouch S (2014) Evaluation of a socially assistive robot in eldercare. Workshop paper presented at the international conference on human–robot interaction, Bielefeld. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264710237_Evaluation_of_a_socially_assistive_robot_in_eldercare_Workshop_paper. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  11. Hutson S, Lim SL, Bentley PJ, Bianchi-Berthouze N, Bowling A (2011) Investigating the suitability of social robots for the wellbeing of the elderly. Lect Notes Comput Sc 6975:578–587. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24600-5_61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Taggart W, Turkle S, Kidd CD (2005) An interactive robot in a nursing home: Preliminary remarks. In: Proceedings of the CogSci-2005 workshop toward social mechanisms of android science, Stresa, pp 56–61. http://www.androidscience.com/proceedings2005/TaggartCogSci2005AS.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  13. Beer JM, Takayama L (2011) Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: acceptance, benefits, and concerns. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human–robot interaction, New York, pp 19-26. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957665

  14. Gonzalez-Jimenez J, Galindo C, Gutierrez-Castaneda C (2013) Evaluation of a telepresence robot for the elderly: a Spanish experience. Lect Notes Comput Sc 7930:141–150. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38637-4_15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Beer JM, Prakash A, Mitzner TL, Rogers WA (2011) Understanding robot acceptance. Technical report (HFA-TR-1103) of the Georgia Institute of Technology. https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/39672/HFA-TR-1103-RobotAcceptance.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  16. Smarr C-A, Prakash A, Beer JM, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2012) Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistiance for everyday living tasks. Hum Fac Ergon Soc 56:153–157. doi:10.1177/1071181312561009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Flandorfer P (2012) Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int J Popul Res 2012:1–13. doi:10.1155/2012/829835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bouwhuis DG (2003) Design for person–environment interaction in older age: a gerontechnological perspective. Gerontechnology 2:232–246. doi:10.4017/gt.2003.02.03.002.00

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. De Graaf MM, Ben Allouch S (2013) Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robot Auton Syst 61:1476–1486. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee KM, Jung Y, Kim J, Kim SR (2006) Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents? The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. Int J Hum Comput Syst 64:962–973. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shibata T, Wada K, Ikeda Y, Sabanovic S (2009) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Adv Robot 23:443–458. doi:10.1163/156855309X408826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2006) The influence of people’s culture and prior experience with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21:217–230. doi:10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scopelliti M, Giuliani MV, Fornara F (2005) Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Univers Access Inf 4:146–155. doi:10.1007/s10209-005-0118-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Frennert S, Östlund B, Eftring H (2012) Would granny let an assistive robot into her home? Lect Notes Comput Sc 7621:128–137. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34103-8_13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2013) What older people expect of robots: a mixed methods approach. Lect Notes Comput Sc 8239:19–29. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 6:17–32. doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0186-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 2:361–375. doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1:319–330. doi:10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Baltes PB (1997) On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny. Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. Am Psychol 52:366–380. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Staudinger UM, Marsiske M, Baltes PB (1995) Resilience and reserve capacity in later adulthood: potentials and limits of development across the life span. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ (eds) Risk, disorder, and adaptation. Wiley, New York, pp 801-847. http://ioa126.medsch.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/95.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  31. Chen K, Chan AHS (2011) A review of technology acceptance by older adults. Gerontechnology 10:1–12. doi:10.4017/gt.2011.10.01.006.00

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mallenius S, Rossi M, Tuunainen VK (2007) Factors affecting the adoption and use of mobile devices and services by elderly people—results from a pilot study. Paper presented at the 6th annual global mobility roundtable, Los Angeles. http://classic.marshall.usc.edu/assets/025/7535.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  33. Schulz R (2012) Facilitators and barriers to technology uptake: individual end-user perspectives. In: Schulz R (ed) Quality of life technology handbook. CRC-Books, Boca Raton, pp 17–27

    Google Scholar 

  34. Czaja SJ, Sharit J, Charness N, Fisk AD, Rogers W (2001) The Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE): a program to enhance technology for older adults. Gerontechnology 1:50–59. doi:10.4017/gt.2001.01.01.005.00

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Steel DM, Gray MA (2009) Baby boomers’ use and perception of recommended assistive technology: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 4:129–136. doi:10.1080/17483100902767175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Harrefors C, Axelsson K, Sävenstedt S (2010) Using assistive technology services at differing levels of care: healthy older couples’ perceptions. J Adv Nurs 66:1523–1532. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05335.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wessels R, Dijcks B, Soede M, Gelderblom GJ, de Witte L (2003) Non-use of provided assistive technology devices. A literature overview. Technol Disabil 15:231-238.http://content.iospress.com/articles/technology-and-disability/tad00137. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  38. Ryu M-H, Kim S, Lee E (2009) Understanding the factors affecting online elderly user’s participation in video UCC services. Comput Hum Behav 25:619–632. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tomita MR, Mann WC, Fraas LF, Stanton KM (2004) Predictors of the use of assistive devices that address physical impairments among community-based frail elders. J Appl Gerontol 23:141–155. doi:10.1177/0733464804265606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Scherer M, Jutai J, Fuhrer M, Demers L, DeRuyter F (2007) A framework for modelling the selection of assistive technology devices (ATDs). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2:1–8. doi:10.1080/17483100600845414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. McCreadie C, Tinker A (2005) The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing Soc 25:91–110. doi:10.1017/S0144686X0400248X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Melenhorst A-S, Rogers AW, Bouwhuis DG (2006) Older adults motivated choice for technological innovation. Evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychol Aging 21:190–195. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mathieson KM, Kronenfeld J, Keith VM (2002) Maintaining functional independence in elderly adults: the roles of health status and financial resources in predicting home modifications and use of mobility equipment. Gerontologist 42:24–31. doi:10.1093/geront/42.1.24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zimmer Z, Chappell NL (1994) Mobility restriction and the use of devices among seniors. J Aging Health 6:185–208. doi:10.1177/089826439400600204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cesta A, Coradeschi S, Cortellessa G, Gonzalez J, Tiberio L, von Rump S (2010) Enabling social interaction through embodiment in ExCITE. In: 2nd Italian Forum on Ambient Assisted Living, Trento, pp 1-7. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Silvia_Coradeschi/publication/228963861_Enabling_Social_Interaction_Through_Embodiment_in_ExCITE/links/0fcfd5077bb4796d50000000.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  46. Shibata T, Wada K, Saito T, Tanie K (2005) Human interactive robot for psychological enrichment and therapy. In: Proceedings of the AISB’05: social intelligence and interaction in animals, robots and agents symposium on robot companions: hard problems and open challenges in robot–human-interaction. Hatfield, pp 98–109. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.102.5958&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=111. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  47. Kolling T, Baisch S, Schall A, Selic S, Rühl S, Kim Z, Rossberg H, Klein B, Pantel J, Oswald F, Knopf M (2016) What is emotional in emotional robotics? In: Tettegah SY, Garcia YE (eds) Emotion, technology and health. Communication of feelings for, with, and through digital media. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 83–104

  48. Von Rump S (2013) Paula visits Pat [video]. https://vimeo.com/42391813. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  49. Luck W (2013) Die Welt des Vergessens - Würdevoll leben trotz Demenz [The world of forgetting—living with dignity despite dementia] [documentary film]. Südwestdeutscher Rundfunk, Stuttgart

  50. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (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, Toyama, pp 528–533. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326320

  51. Mollenkopf H, Oswald F, Wahl H-W (2007) Neue Person-Umwelt-Konstellationen im Alter: Befunde und Perspektiven zu Wohnen, außerhäuslicher Mobilität und Technik [New person–environment constellations in later life: findings and perspectives on housing, out-of-home mobility and technology]. In: Wahl H-W, Mollenkopf H (eds) Alternsforschung am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. Alterns- und Lebenslaufkonzeptionen im deutschsprachigen Raum [Ageing research at the beginning of the 21st century]. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, pp 361–380

  52. Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lum O, Huang V, Adey M, Leirer YO (1983) Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 39:37–39. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(82)90033-4

    Google Scholar 

  53. Brunner E, Puri ML (2002) A class of rank-score tests in factorial designs. J Stat Plan Inference 103:331–360. doi:10.1016/S0378-3758(01)00230-0

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Wilcox RR (2013) Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. SPSS Statistics (Version 22) [computer software]. IBM

  56. Wu Y-H, Cristancho-Lacroix V, Fassert C, Facounau V, de Rotrou J, Rigaud A-S (2016) The attitudes and perceptions of older adults with mild cognitive impairment toward an assistive robot. J Appl Gerontol 35:3–17. doi:10.1177/0733464813515092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zaad L, Ben Allouch S (2008) The influence of control on the acceptance of ambient intelligence by elderly people: an explorative study. Lect Notes Comput Sc 5355:58–74. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89617-3_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Shibata T, Kawaguchi Y, Wada K (2012) Investigation on people living with seal robot at home. Analysis of owners’ gender differences and pet ownership experience. Int J Soc Robot 4:53–63. doi:10.1007/s12369-011-0111-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Law M (2002) Participation in the occupations of everyday life. Am J Occup Ther 56:640–649. doi:10.5014/ajot.56.6.640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Neven L (2010) ‘But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociol Health Ill 32:335–347. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01218.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: towards a unified view. MIS Q 27:425–478. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.197.1486&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  62. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–339. http://iris.nyit.edu/~kkhoo/Spring2008/Topics/TAM/PercieveUsefulness_MIS.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

  63. De Graaf MM, Ben Allouch S, van Dijk JA (2014) Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes. In: Proceedings of the AISB workshop in human–robot interaction, London. http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aisb50/AISB50-S19/AISB50-S19-deGraaf-paper.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Developmental Psychology Lab, Goethe University, PEG-Gebäude, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefanie Baisch, Thorsten Kolling, Ziyon Kim & Monika Knopf

  2. Institute of General Medicine, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Arthur Schall & Johannes Pantel

  3. Interdisciplinary Ageing Research (IAW), Goethe University, PEG-Gebäude, Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Saskia Rühl & Frank Oswald

  4. Faculty of Social Work and Health, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Nibelungenplatz 1, 60318, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefanie Selic, Holger Rossberg & Barbara Klein

Authors
  1. Stefanie Baisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thorsten Kolling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arthur Schall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Saskia Rühl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefanie Selic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ziyon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Holger Rossberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Barbara Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Johannes Pantel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Frank Oswald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Monika Knopf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie Baisch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research was funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF), Project-No. 16SV6185.

Research Involving Humans

The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee and was conducted in line with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association and the German Association of Psychology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie e.V., DGPs). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Additional information

Disclaimer The views expressed in the submitted article are the authors’ owns and not an official position of the institution or funder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baisch, S., Kolling, T., Schall, A. et al. Acceptance of Social Robots by Elder People: Does Psychosocial Functioning Matter?. Int J of Soc Robotics 9, 293–307 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0392-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0392-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation