, Volume 21, Issue 1–2, pp 217–230 | Cite as

The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots

  • Christoph Bartneck
  • Tomohiro Suzuki
  • Takayuki Kanda
  • Tatsuya Nomura
Open Forum


This paper presents a cross-cultural study on peoples’ negative attitude toward robots. 467 participants from seven different countries filled in the negative attitude towards robots scale survey which consists of 14 questions in three clusters: attitude towards the interaction with robots, attitude towards social influence of robots and attitude towards emotions in interaction with robots. Around one half of them were recruited at local universities and the other half was approached through Aibo online communities. The participants’ cultural background had a significant influence on their attitude and the Japanese were not as positive as stereotypically assumed. The US participants had the most positive attitude, while participants from Mexico had the most negative attitude. The participants from the online community were more positive towards robots than those not involved. Previous experience in interacting with Aibo also had a positive effect, but owning an Aibo did not improve their attitude.


Robot Attitude Emotion Interaction Social Culture 



We would like to thank Jodi Forlizzi, Oscar Mayora Ibarra, Hu Jun and Juliane Reichenbach, Kennsuke Kato, Kerstin Dautenhahn and Sarah Woods for their generous help in gathering the data. In addition, we would like to thank Chi Ho Chan, David Cournapeau, Nathalia Romero Herrera, Alice Jager, Roberto Lopez and Machi Takahachi for their efforts in translating the questionnaire. This study was supported by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, Japan.


  1. Bartneck C, Forlizzi J (2004) A design-centred framework for social human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the Ro-Man2004, KurashikiGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartneck C, Okada M (2001) Robotic user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the human and computer conference (HC2001), AizuGoogle Scholar
  3. Breazeal C (2003) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Breemen AJN v, Yan X, Meerbeek B (2005) iCat: an animated user-interface robot with personality. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgard W, Cremers AB, Fox D, Hahnel D, Lakemeyer G, Schulz D et al (1998) The interactive museum tour-guide robot. In: Proceedings of the artificial intelligence/innovative applications of artificial intelligence, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron J (Writer) (1984) The Terminator [DVD]. In: J. Daly (Producer): MGMGoogle Scholar
  7. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Rob Auton Syst 42:143–166CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Gemperle F, DiSalvo C, Forlizzi J, Yonkers W (2003) The Hug: a new form for communication. In: Proceedings of the designing the user experience (DUX2003), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirsch T, Forlizzi J, Hyder E, Goetz J, Stroback J, Kurtz C (2000) The ELDeR project: social and emotional factors in the design of eldercare technologies. In: Proceedings of the conference on universal usability, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hofstede GH (1991) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind London. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Intini J (2005) Robo-sapiens rising: Sony, Honda and others are spending millions to put a robot in your house. = 20050718_109126_109126
  12. Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishigur H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Human computer interaction. Spec Issues Human Robot Interact 19(1–2):61–84Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan F (2004) Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. Int J Human Robot 1(3):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2004) Experimental investigationi into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on social intelligence design (SID2004), TwenteGoogle Scholar
  15. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2005) People’s assumptions about robots: investigation of their relationships with attitudes and emotions toward robots. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication (ROMAN2005), NashvilleGoogle Scholar
  16. Okada M (2001, 2001) Muu: artificial creatures as an embodied interface. In: Proceedings of the ACM Siggraph 2001, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  17. Raub AC (1981) Correlates of computer anxiety in college students. PhD Thesis, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  18. Sloterdijk P (2002) L’Heure du Crime et le Temps de l’Oeuvre d’Art: Calman-LevyGoogle Scholar
  19. Sony (1999). Aibo. From
  20. United Nations (2005). World robotics 2005. United Nations Publication, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. Wachowski A, Wachowski L (Writer) (2003) AnimatrixGoogle Scholar
  22. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K (2004) Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. Proc IEEE 92(11):1780–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yamamoto S (1983) Why the Japanese have no allergy towards robots. L’esprit d’aujourd’hui (Gendai no Esupuri), 187:136–143Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Bartneck
    • 1
  • Tomohiro Suzuki
    • 2
  • Takayuki Kanda
    • 3
  • Tatsuya Nomura
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Graduate School of SociologyToyo UniversityTokyo Japan
  3. 3.IRC, Department 2ATRKyoto Japan
  4. 4.Department of Media InformaticsRyukoku UniversityShigaJapan

Personalised recommendations