International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 361–375 | Cite as

Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model

  • Marcel HeerinkEmail author
  • Ben Kröse
  • Vanessa Evers
  • Bob Wielinga
Open Access


This paper proposes a model of technology acceptance that is specifically developed to test the acceptance of assistive social agents by elderly users. The research in this paper develops and tests an adaptation and theoretical extension of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) by explaining intent to use not only in terms of variables related to functional evaluation like perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, but also variables that relate to social interaction. The new model was tested using controlled experiment and longitudinal data collected regarding three different social agents at elderly care facilities and at the homes of older adults. The model was strongly supported accounting for 59–79% of the variance in usage intentions and 49–59% of the variance in actual use. These findings contribute to our understanding of how elderly users accept assistive social agents.


Technology acceptance Assistive technology Elderly users Social robots Embodied agents 


  1. 1.
    United Nations (2007) World population prospects: the 2006 revision-comprehensive tables. United Nations Publications, New York Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pollack M (2005) Intelligent technology for an aging population: the use of AI to assist elders with cognitive impairment. AI Mag 26(2):9–24 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giuliani MS, Fornara F (2005) Coping strategies and technology in later life. In: Proceedings of AISB 2005, Hatfield Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zajicek M, Arnold A (1999) The ‘technology push’ and the user Tailored information environment. In: 5th European research consortium for informatics and mathematics, workshop on user interfaces for all Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) The effectiveness of assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnol J 8(2):94–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breazeal C (2003) Towards sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nomura T, Nakao A (2010) Comparison on identification of affective body motions by robots between elder people and university students: a case study in Japan. Int J Soc Robot 2(2):147–157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manag Inf Syst Q Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graf B, Hans M, Schraft RD (2004) Care-O-bot II development of a next generation robotic home assistant. Auton Robots 16(2):193–205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yanco HA (2001) Development and testing of a robotic wheelchair system for outdoor navigation. In: Proceedings of the 2001 conference of the rehabilitation engineering and assistive technology society of North America Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guizzo E, Goldstein H (2005) The rise of the body bots [robotic exoskeletons]. IEEE Spectr 42(10):50–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scanaill CN, Carew S, Barralon P, Noury N, Lyons D, Lyons GM (2006) A review of approaches to mobility telemonitoring of the elderly in their living environment. Ann Biomed Eng 34(4):547–563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DiSalvo C, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Montgomery E, Yonkers W, Divine J (2003) The hug: an exploration of robotic form for intimate communication. In: RO-MAN 03 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beck A, Edwards N, Friedman B, Khan P (2003) Robotic pets and the elderly. Available from:
  15. 15.
    Jung JW, Do JH, Kim YM, Suh KS, Kim DJ, Bien ZZ (2005) Advanced robotic residence for the elderly/the handicapped: realization and user evaluation. In: 9th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giuliani MV, Scopelliti M, Fornara F (2005) Elderly people at home: technological help in everyday activities. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, ROMAN 2005, pp 365–370 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Pecora F, Rasconi R (2007) Supporting interaction in the robo care intelligent assistive environment. In: Proceedings of AAAI spring symposium on interaction challenges for intelligent assistants, pp 18–25 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pollack ME, Brown L, Colbry D, Orosz C, Peintner B, Ramakrishnan S, Engberg S, Matthews JT, Dunbar-Jacob J, McCarthy CE, Thrun S, Montemerlo M, Pineau J, Pearl NR (2002) A mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In: AAAI workshop on automation as eldercare Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shibata T, Wada K, Tanie K (2003) Statistical analysis and comparison of questionnaire results of subjective evaluations of seal robot in Japan and UK. In: Proceedings IROS 2003 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, televisions, and new media as real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stiehl WD, Lieberman J, Breazeal C, Basel L, Cooper R, Knight H, Lalla L, Maymin A, Purchase S (2006) The Huggable: a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective Touch. In: IEEE consumer communications and networking conference Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parlitz C, Baum W, Reiser U, Hagele M (2007) Intuitive human-machine-interaction and implementation on a household robot companion. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4557:922–929 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bickmore T, Caruso L, Clough-Gorr K (2005) Acceptance and usability of a relational agent interface by urban older adults. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Portland, USA Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bickmore T, Schulman D (2006) The comforting presence of relational agents. In: Proceedings of CHI Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bartneck C, Reichenbach J, van Breemen AJN (2004) In your face, robot! The influence of a character’s embodiment on how users perceive its emotional expressions, design and emotion. In: Proceedings of the design and emotion 2004 conference, Ankara, Turkey Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shinozawa K, Naya F, Yamato J, Kogure K (2005) Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making. Int J Hum Comput Stud 62(2):267–279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fishbein M (1980) A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. Neb Symp Motiv 27:65–116 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Manag Inf Syst Q 27(3):425–478 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Ruyter B, Saini P, Markopoulos P, van Breemen AJN (2005) Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Soc Impact Emerg Technol 17(5):522–541 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wu I-L, Chen J-L (2005) An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: an empirical study. Int J HCS 62(6) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang H, Yoo Y (2004) It’s all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decis Support Syst 38(1):19–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brown HG, Scott M, Deng PL, Forducey P (2005) Towards a sociability theory of computer anxiety: an interpersonal circumplex perspective. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: Proceedings RO-MAN Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J Appl Soc Psychol 22:1111–1132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chesney T (2006) An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems. Hum Technol 2(2):225–235 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sun H, Zhang P (2006) Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use: an alternative approach. J Assoc Inf Syst 7(9) Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Van der Heijden H (2004) User acceptance of hedonic information systems. Manag Inf Syst Q 28(4):695–704 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Heerink M, Kröse BJA, Wielinga BJ, Evers V (2008) Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In: Proceedings HRI 2008, Amsterdam, pp 113–120 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3):225–240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lombard M, Ditton TB (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J Comput-Mediat Commun 3(2). Available online:
  42. 42.
    Lee KM, Nass C (2003) Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI 2003 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Heerink M, Kröse BJA, Wielinga BJ, Evers V (2008) The influence of social presence on enjoyment and intention to use of a robot and screen agent by elderly users. In: Proceedings RO-MAN, München Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Loomis JM (2001) Equilibrium revisited: mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 10:583–598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Wielinga B, Evers V (2009) Measuring the influence of social abilities on acceptance of an interface robot and a screen agent by elderly users. In: Proceedings HCI 2009, Cambridge Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mitsunaga N, Miyashita Z, Shinozawa K, Miyashita T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2008) What makes people accept a robot in a social environment-discussion from six-week study in an office. In: IROS, Nice Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Forlizzi J (2007) How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: ACM SIGCHI/SIGART human-robot interaction, pp 129–136 Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Heerink M, Kröse BJA, Wielinga BJ, Evers V (2006) Studying the acceptance of a robotic agent by elderly users. Int J Assist Robot Mechatron 7(3):33–43 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marsh S, Briggs P, Wagealla W (2004) Considering trust in ambient societies. In: Extended abstracts of the 2004 conference on human factors and computing systems Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cody-Allen E, Kishore R (2006) An extension of the UTAUT model with e-quality, trust, and satisfaction constructs. ACM, New York Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shinozawa K, Reeves B, Wise K, Lim S, Maldonado H, Naya F (2003) Robots as new media: a cross-cultural examination of social and cognitive responses to robotic and on-screen agents. In: Proceedings of the 53rd annual conference of the international communication association, information systems division, San Diego, CA, pp 998–1002 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Camarinha-Matos LM, Afsarmanesh H (2002) Design of a virtual community infrastructure for elderly care. In: 3rd IFIP working conference on infrastructures for virtual enterprises. Kluwer, Dordrecht Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pew R, Hemel SV (2004) Technology for adaptive aging. National Academies Press, Washington Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2004) Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. J HCI, Special Issue on HRI 19(1/2):25–59 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    van Breemen A, Yan X, Meerbeek B (2005) iCat: an animated user-interface robot with personality. In: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 143–144 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Heerink M, Kröse BJA, Wielinga BJ, Evers V (2008) The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. J Phys Agents 2(2):33–40 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bahadori S, Cesta A, Grisetti G, Iocchi L, Leone R, Nardi D, Oddi A, Pecora F, Rasconi R (2003) RoboCare: an integrated robotic system for the domestic care of the elderly. In: Proceedings of workshop on AI IA-03, Pisa, Italy Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Woods S, Walters M, Koay KL Dautenhahn K (2006) Comparing human-robot interaction scenarios using live and video based methods: towards a novel methodological approach. In: Proceedings RO-MAN 2006, Hertfordshire Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Heerink M (2009) Exploring adaptability, adaptivity and user control. Information Engineering Institute, Almere Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Wielinga B, Evers V Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. In: Proceedings RO-MAN 2009, Toyama, Japan Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Heerink M (2008) Evaluating steffie. Information Engineering Institute, Almere Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau M (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Struct Equ Model 4(7) Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tanaka JS (1987) “How big is big enough?”: sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. In: Child development, pp 134–146 Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hayduk LA (1987) Structural equation modeling with LISREL: essentials and advances. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (1996) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, New Jersey zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schubert T, Friedmann F, Regenbrecht H (1999) Embodied presence in virtual environments. In: Visual representations and interpretations, pp 268–278 Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis with readings. Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel Heerink
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ben Kröse
    • 2
  • Vanessa Evers
    • 2
  • Bob Wielinga
    • 2
  1. 1.Amsterdam University of Applied SciencesAlmereThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations