International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 299–310 | Cite as

Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and Older People

  • Susanne FrennertEmail author
  • Britt Östlund


This article maps the range of currently held scientific positions on matters of concern involving social robots and older people. 345 publications from peer-reviewed journals and conferences were narrowed down to 31 key publications that were studied in detail and categorised into seven matters of concern: (1) role of robots in older people’s lives, (2) factors affecting older people’s acceptance of robots, (3) lack of mutual inspiration in the development of robots for older people, (4) robot aesthetics, (5) ethical implications of using robots in caring for older people, (6) robotic research methodology, and (7) technical determinism versus social construction of social robots. The findings indicate that older people are implicated but not present in the development of robots and that their matters of concern are not identified in the design process. Instead, they are ascribed general needs of social robots due to societal changes such as ageing demographics and demands from the healthcare industry. The conceptualisation of older people seems to be plagued with stereotypical views such as that they are lonely, frail and in need of robotic assistance. Our conclusions are that the perceptions of older people need to be re-examined and perhaps redefined in order to fairly represent who they are, and that more research on older people as social robotic users is needed.


Social robots Older people Stereotypes Actor Network Theory Science and Technology Studies 



We would like to thank Professors Henrik Schärfe, Peter Ullmark and Bo Westerlund who individually, through fruitful discussions with the first author, inspired her to write this paper (but who cannot be held accountable for any of the content). We also would like to thank Dr Elisabeth Dalholm Hornyánszky, Dr Per-Olof Hedvall, the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable and insightful comments on an earlier version of the paper, and Eileen Deaner for proofreading. This research was partially funded by the European Commission under FP7-ICT-288146, HOBBIT and FP7-ICT-288173, GiraffPlus.

Supplementary material

12369_2013_225_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 30 KB)


  1. 1.
    Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flandorfer P (2012) Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int J Popul Res 2012:1–13Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Young JE et al (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bemelmans R et al (2012) Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J Am Med Dir Assoc 13(2):114–120.e1Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanda T, Ishiguro H (2012) Human–robot interaction in social robotics. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy D (2008) Love+ sex with robots: the evolution of human–robot relations. Harper Perennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brooks RA (2002) Flesh and machines: how robots will change us. Pantheon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (2011) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bijker WE (2009) Social construction of technology. In: Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen SAP, Hendricks VF (eds) A companion to the philosophy of technology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory. In: Latour B (ed) Reassembling the social—an introduction to actor-network-theory, vol 1. (Foreword by Latour B). Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 316. ISBN-10: 0199256047, ISBN-13: 9780199256044Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (1999) The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lie M, Sørensen KH (1996) Making technology our own?: domesticating technology into everyday life. Scandinavian University Press, OsloGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bijker W, Law J (1994) Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fuglsan L (2001) Three perspectives in STS in the policy context. Visions of STS: counterpoints in science, technology and society studies. SUNY Series in Science, Technology and Society, New York, pp 35–55Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaplan DM (2009) Readings in the philosophy of technology. Rowman & Littlefield, LandhamGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Latour B (1991) Technology is society made durable. In: Law J (ed) A sociology of Monsters new. Essays on power, technology and domination. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 103–131Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Law J, Hassard J (1999) Actor network theory and after. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown N, Webster A (2004) New medical technologies and society: reordering life. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Silverstone R, Hirsch E (1992) Consuming technologies: media and information in domestic spaces. Psychology Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Silverstone R, Hirsch E, Morley D (1992) Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. Consuming technologies: media and information in domestic spaces. Routledge, London, pp 15–31Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hackett EJ et al (2008) The handbook of science and technology studies. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winfield A (2012) Robotics: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nourbakhsh IR (2013) Robot futures: an ethics of critical responsiveness. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Breazeal CL (2004) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):143–166zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suchman L (2006) Human–machine reconfigurations: plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 24(2):105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 362(1480):679–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pulman S (2007) Towards necessary and sufficient conditions for being a companion. In: Artificial companions in society: perspectives on the present and future. Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford, p 36Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Walters ML et al (2007) Robotic etiquette: results from user studies involving a fetch and carry task. In: 2nd ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), 2007Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Breazeal C (2011) Social robots for health applications. In: Annual international conference of the IEEE on engineering in medicine and biology society, EMBC 2011Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Joyce K, Loe M (2010) A sociological approach to ageing, technology and health. Sociol Health Illn 32(2):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oost E, Reed D, Oost E, Reed D (2011) Towards a sociological understanding of robots as companions. In: Lamers MH, Verbeek FO (eds) Human–robot personal relationships. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2011) Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Beer JM et al (2012) The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Heerink M et al (2009) Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. In: IEEEGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach 16(2):141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Riessman (1965) The “helper” therapy principle. Soc Work 10: 27–32Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roger K et al (2012) Social commitment robots and dementia. Can J Aging 31(1):87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shibata T et al (2009) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Adv Robot 23(4):443–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Banks MR, Banks WA (2002) The effects of animal-assisted therapy on loneliness in an elderly population in long-term care facilities. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 57(7):M428–M432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wada K et al (2002) Analysis of factors that bring mental effects to elderly people in robot assisted activity. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systemsGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wada K et al (2004) Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. Proc IEEE 92(11): 1780–1788Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wada K et al (2005) Psychological and social effects of one year robot assisted activity on elderly people at a health service facility for the aged. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2005 (ICRA 2005)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pollack ME et al (2002) Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In: AAAI workshop on automation as eldercareGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Salvini P, Laschi C, Dario P (2010) Design for acceptability: improving robots’ coexistence in human society. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2004) Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Human–Computer Interact 19(1–2):25–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kidd CD, Taggart W, Turkle S (2006) A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In: Proceedings 2006 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2006 (ICRA 2006)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Heerink M et al (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Neven L (2010) ‘But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociol Health illn 32(2): 335–347Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Czaja SJ, Lee CC (2007) The impact of aging on access to technology. Univers Access in the Inf Soc 5(4):341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kohlbacher F, Herstatt C (2008) The silver market phenomenon: business opportunities in an era of demographic change. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shaw-Garlock G (2009) Looking forward to sociable robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhao S (2006) Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication. New Media Soc 8(3):401–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Robertson J (2010) Gendering humanoid robots: robo-sexism in Japan. Body Soc 16(2):1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Coeckelbergh M (2011) You, robot: on the linguistic construction of artificial others. AI Soc 26(1):61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ (2011) Socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2012) The eldercare factory. Gerontology 58(3):282–288MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dodig-Crnkovic G, Çürüklü B (2012) Robots: ethical by design. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sullins J (2012) Robots, love and sex: the ethics of building a love machine. Affect Comput 3(4):398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Callén B et al (2009) Telecare research: (Cosmo) politicizing methodology. ALTER Eur J Disabil Res 3(2):110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dautenhahn K, Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 362(1480):679–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gaver W (2012) What should we expect from research through design? In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wyatt S (2008) Technological determinism is dead: long live technological determinism. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 165–180Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hüttenrauch H et al (2006) Investigating spatial relationships in human–robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systemsGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Walters ML et al (2005) The influence of subjects’ personality traits on personal spatial zones in a human–robot interaction experiment. In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN 2005)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Oudshoorn N, Pinch T (2003) How users matter: the co-construction of users and technology (inside technology). The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bouma H et al (2007) Gerontechnology in perspective. Gerontechnology 6(4):190–216MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Foucault M (1982) The subject and power. Crit Inquiry 8(4): 777–795Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Dautenhahn K (2004) Socially intelligent agents in human primate culture. In: Trappl R, Payr S (eds) Agent culture: human–agent interaction in a multicultural world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Center for the Study of Language and Information/Cambridge University Press, Chicago/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gassmann O, Reepmeyer G (2011) Universal design: innovations for all ages. In: Kohlbacher F, Herstatt C (eds) The silver market phenomenon. Springer, Berlin, pp 101–116Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Burrows E (2011) The birth of a robot race. Eng Technol 6(10): 46–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Gaver B, Dunne T, Pacenti E (1999) Design: cultural probes. Interactions 6(1):21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hutchinson H et al (2003) Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Geminoid: teleoperated android of an existing person. Humanoid robots–new developments. I-Tech, Vienna, p 14Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Weiss A et al (2011) Looking forward to a “robotic society”? Int J Soc Robot 3(2):111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Goffman E (2005) Interaction ritual: essays in face-to-face behavior. Aldine Transaction, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Verbeek PP (2011) Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Design Sciences, Rehabilitation EngineeringLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Design SciencesLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations