Advertisement

International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 643–668 | Cite as

Factors Affecting the Acceptability of Social Robots by Older Adults Including People with Dementia or Cognitive Impairment: A Literature Review

  • Sally Whelan
  • Kathy Murphy
  • Eva Barrett
  • Cheryl Krusche
  • Adam Santorelli
  • Dympna Casey
Article

Abstract

Social robots are being developed to support care given to older adults (OA), people with dementia (PWD) and OA with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by facilitating their independence and well-being. The successful deployment of robots should be guided by knowledge of factors which affect acceptability. This paper critically reviews empirical studies which have explored how acceptability issues impact OA, PWD and OA with MCI. The aim is to identify the factors governing acceptability, to ascertain what is likely to improve acceptability and make recommendations for future research. A search of the literature published between 2005 and 2015 revealed a relatively small body of relevant work has been conducted focusing on the acceptability of robots by PWD or OA with MCI (n \(=\) 21), and on acceptability for OA (n \(=\) 23). The findings are presented using constructs from the Almere robot acceptance model. They reveal acceptance of robots is affected by multiple interacting factors, pertaining to the individual, significant others and the wider society. Acceptability can be improved through robots using humanlike communication, being personalised in response to individual users’ needs and including issues of trust and control of the robot which relates to degrees of robot adaptivity. However, most studies are of short duration, have small sample sizes and some do not involve actual robot usage or are conducted in laboratories rather than in real world contexts. Larger randomised controlled studies, conducted in the context where robots will be deployed, are needed to investigate how acceptance factors are affected when humans use robots for longer periods of time and become habituated to them.

Keywords

Technology acceptability Acceptance theories Social robots Dementia Older adults 

Notes

Funding

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Horizons 2020—the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020) under Grant Agreement 643808 Project MARIO ‘Managing active and healthy aging with use of caring service robots”.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Prince M, Guerchet M, Prina M (2013) Policy brief for heads of government: the global impact of dementia 2013–2050. Alzheimer’s disease International (ADI), LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wimo A, Prince M (2010) World alzheimer report: the global economic impact of dementia. Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI), LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alzheimers Society (2015) What is mild cognitive impairment, Factsheet 47. https://www.alzheimers.org.uk. Accessed 18 June 2017
  4. 4.
    Mordoch E, Osterreicher A, Guse L, Roger K, Thompson G (2013) Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: a literature review. Maturitas 74(1):14–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang W-L, Sabanovi S, Huber L (2013) Use of seal-like robot PARO in sensory group therapy for older adults with dementia. In: IEEE robotics and automation magazineGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klein B, Cook G (2012) Emotional robotics in elder care—a comparison of findings in the UK and Germany. In: al. SSGe (ed) Emotional robotics in elder care. Springer, Berlin, pp 108–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sung HC, Chang SM, Chin MY, Lee WL (2015) Robot-assisted therapy for improving social interactions and activity participation among institutionalised older adults: a pilot study. Asia Pac Psychiatry 7(1):1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/appy.12131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Takayanagi K, Kirita T, Shibata T (2014) Comparison of verbal and emotional responses of elderly people with mild/moderate dementia and those with severe dementia in responses to seal robot, PARO. Front Aging Neurosci 6:257.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moyle W, Cooke M, Jones C, O’Dwyer S, Sung B (2013) Assistive technologies as a means of connecting people with dementia. Int Psychogeriatr 25:S21–22Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1480:679–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stafford R (2013) The contribution of people’s attitudes and perceptions to the acceptance of eldercare robots. The University of Auckland, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Kerse N, Knock B, Patience A, MacDonal B (2009) Retirement home staff and residents’ preferences for healthcare robots. Paper presented at the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication Toyama Japan, 27th OctGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spiekman ME, Haazebroek P, Neerincx MA (2011) Requirements and platforms for social agents that alarm and support elderly living alone. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 226–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2013) Older people’s involvement in the development of a social assistive robot. In Herrmann G, Pearson MJ, Lenz A, Bremner P, Spiers A, Leonards U (eds) Social robotics: 5th international conference, ICSR 2013, Bristol, UK, October 27–29, 2013, Proceedings, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2:361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heerink M (2011) Exploing the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. Paper presented at the HRI’11, Lausanne Switzerland, March 6–9thGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Young J, Hawkins R, Sharlin E, Igarashi T (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Flandorfer P (2012) Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int J Pop Res 2012:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/829835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scopelliti M, Giuliani MV, Fornara F (2004) Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Univ Access Inf Soc 4:146–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shibata T (2012) Therapeutic seal robot as biofeedback medical device. Proc IEEE 100(8):2527–2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stafford R, MacDonald B, Jayawardena D, Wegner D, Broadbent E (2013) Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int J of Soc Robot 6:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Takayama L (2011) Perspectives on agency: interacting with and through personal robots. In: Zacarias M, Oliveira JV (eds) Human-computer interaction: the agency perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 195–214Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stafford R, Broadbent E, Jayawardena C, Unger U, Kuo I, Igic A, Wong R, Kerse N, Watson C, MacDonald B (2010) Improved robot attitudes and emotions at a retirement home after meeting a robot. Paper presented at the RO-MAN international symposium on robots and human interaction, Viareggio, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arras K, Cerqui D (2005) Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000-people survey. Technical report Nr 0605-001 Autonomous Systems Lab Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, EPFLGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nomura T, Sugimoto K, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2012) Social acceptance of humanoid robots in Japan: a survey for development of the Frankenstein Syndorome Questionnaire. Paper presented at the 12th IEEE_RAS international conference on humanoid robots, Osaka Japan, 29th–1st DecGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Graaf MMA, Allouch SB, Klamer T (2015) Sharing a life with Harvey: exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Comput Hum Behav 43:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gross H, Schroeter C, Mueller S, Bley A, Langner T, Volkhardt M, Einhorn E, Merten M, Huijnen C, Heuvel Hvd, Berlo AC (2012) Further progress towards a home robot companion for people with mild conitive impairment. Paper presented at the IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, COEX Seoul Korea, 14–17th OctoberGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pfadenhauer M, Dukat C (2015) Robot caregiver or robot-supported caregiving? Int J Soc Robot 7(3):393–406.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0284-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stafford R, MacDonald B, Broadbent E (2012) Identifying specific reasons behind unmet needs may inform more specific eldercare robot design. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on social robotics ICSRGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pino M, Boulay M, Jouen F, Rigaud A-S (2015) ’Are we ready for robots that care for us?’ Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Front Aging Neurosci 7(141):1–15Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mitzner TL, Chen TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2014) Identifying the potential for robotics to assist older adults in different living environments. Int J Soc Robot 6(2):213–227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0218-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Begum M, Wang R, Huq R, Mihailidis A (2013) Performance of daily activities by older adults with dementia: the role of an assistive robot. Paper presented at the IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, Seattle, Washington, USA, June 24–26Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sääskilahti K, Kangaskorte R, Pieska S, Jauhiainen J, Luimula M (2012) Needs and user acceptance of older adults for mobile service robot. Paper presented at the IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Paris, France, September 9th–13thGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kerssens C, Kumar R, Adams A, Knott C, Metalenas L, Sanford J, Rogers W (2015) Personalized technology to support older adults with and ithout cognitive impairment living at home. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Dement 30(1):85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davis F, Bagozzi R, Warshaw P (1989) User acceptance of computer technology. A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35:982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Campbell A (2011) Dementia care: could animal robots benefit residents? Nurs Resid Care 13(12):602–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sääskilahti K, Kangaskorte R, Pieska S, Jauhiainen J, Luimula M (2012) Needs and user acceptance of older adults for mobile service robot. In: IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Khosla R, Chu MT, Kachouie R, Yamada K, Yoshihiro F, Yamaguchi T (2012) Interactive multimodal social robot for improving quality of care of elderly in Australian nursing homes. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on multimedia. ACM, pp 1173–1176Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Torta E, Werner F, Johnson D, Juola J, Cuijpers R, Bazzani M, Oberzaucher J, Lemberger J, Lewy H, Bregman J (2014) Evaluation of a small socially-assistive humanoid robot in intelligent homes for the care of the elderly. J Intell Robot Syst 76:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Granata C, Pino M, Legouverneur G, Vidal JS, Bidaud P, Rigaud AS (2013) Robot services for elderly with cognitive impairment: testing usability of graphical user interfaces. Technol Health Care 21(3):217–231.  https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-130718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2006) The influence of a robot’s social abilities on acceptance by elderly users. In: RO-MAN 2006—the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Hatfield, 2006, pp 521–526.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314442
  42. 42.
    Heerink M, Krose B, Wielinga B, Evers V (2008) Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. Paper presented at the HRI’08, Amsterdam Netherlands, March 12–15thGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tapus A, Tapus C, Mataric M (2009) The rold of physical embodiment of a therapist robot for individuals with cognitive impairments. Paper presented at the The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Toyama Japan, Sept. 27th–Oct. 2ndGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Robinson H, MacDonald B, Kerse N, Broadbent E (2013) Suitability of healthcare robots for a dementia unit and suggested improvements. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14(1):23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Khosla R, Khanh N, Chu M-T, Ieee (2014) Assistive robot enabled service architecture to support home-based dementia care. In: 2014 IEEE 7th international conference on service-oriented computing and applications. IEEE international conference on service-oriented computing and applications, pp 73–80.  https://doi.org/10.1109/soca.2014.53
  46. 46.
    Mori M (2012) The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 19:98–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Heerink M, Albo-Canals J, Valenti-Soler M, Martinez-Martin P, Zondag J, Smits C, Anisuzzaman S (2013) In: Herrmann G, Pearson MJ, Lenz A, Bremner P, Spiers A, Leonards U (eds) Exploring requirements and alternative pet robots for robot assisted therapy with older adults with dementia. ICSR, Social Robotics, pp 104–115Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stafford R, MacDonald B, Broadbent E (2014) Older people’s prior robot attitudes influence evaluations of a conversational robot. Int J Soc Robot 6:281–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    DiSalvo C, Gemperle F, Forlizzi H, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. DISGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yamazaki R, Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Nørskov M, Ishiguro N, Balistreri G (2014) Acceptability of a teleoperated android by senior citizens in danish society. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):429–442.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0247-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Walters ML, Dautenhahn K, Woods SN, Koay KL, Boekhorst RT, Lee D (2006) Exploratory studies on social spaces between humans and a mechanical-looking robot. Connect Sci 18:429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cohen-Mansfield J, Thein K, Dakheel-Ali M, Rigier N, Marx M (2010) The value of social attributes of stimuli for promoting engagement in persons with dementia. J Nerv Mental Dis 198(8):586–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cohen-Mansfield J, Dakheel-Ali M, Marx MS (2009) Engagement in persons with dementia: the concept and its measurement. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 17:299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Morris J, Hawes C, Murphy K, Nonemaker S, Phillips C, Fries B, Mor V (1991) MDS resident assessment. Eliot Press, NatickGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Brandon M (2012) Effect of robot-user personality matching on the acceptance of domestic assistant robots for elderly. University of Twente, MastersGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Amirabdollahian F, Op Den Akker R, Bedaf S, Bormann R, Draper H, Evers V, Gelderblom GJ, Ruiz CG, Hewson D, Hu N, Iacono I, Koay KL, Krose B, Marti P, Michel H, Prevot-Huille H, Reiser U, Saunders J, Sorell T, Dautenhahn K (2013) Accompany: acceptable robotics companions for ageing years—multidimensional aspects of human–system interactions. In: 2013 6th international conference on human system interactions, HSI 2013, June 6, 2013–June 8, 2013. IEEE Computer Society, Gdansk, Sopot, Poland, pp 570–577Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Amirabdollahian F, Akker Rod, Bedaf S, Bormann R, Draper H, Evers V, Perez JG, Gelderblo GJ, Ruiz CG (2013) Assistive technology design and development for acceptable robotics companions for ageing years. PALADYN J Behav Robot 4(2):94–112Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sakai Y, Nonaka Y, Yasuda K, Nakano Y (2012) Listener agent for elderly peolpe with dementia. Paper presented at the HRI’12, Boston Massachausetts USA, March 5–8th 2012Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    McColl D, Wing-Yue, Louie G, Nejat G (2013) Brian 2.1 a socially assistive robot for the elderly and cognitively impaired. In: IEEE robotics and automation magazine (March), pp 74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Steinke F, Bading N, Fritsch T, Simonsen S (2014) Factors influencing trust in ambient assisted living technology: a scenario-based analysis. Gerontechnology 12(2):81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Alaiad A, Zhou L (2014) The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: an empirical investigation. Int J Med Inform 83:825–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wu Y-H, Wrobel J, Cornuet M, Kerherve H, Damnee S, Rigaud A-S (2014) Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human-robot interaction over a 1-month period in the living lab setting. Clin Interv Aging 9:801–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Neven L (2010) ’But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Soc Health Illn 32(2):335–347.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01218.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wu Y-H, Faucounau V, Boulay M (2010) Robotic agents for supporting community-dwelling elderly people with memory complaints: perceived needs and preferences. Health Inform J 17(1):33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Frennert S, Eftring H, Ostlund B (2013) Older people’s involvement in the development of a social assistive robot. In: Herrmann G, Pearson M, Lenz A, Bremner P, Spiers A, Leonards U (eds) 5th international conference, ICSR 2013. Springer, Bristol, pp 8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pfadenhauer M, Dukat C (2015) Robot caregiver or robot-supported caregiving? The performative deployment of the social robot PARO in dementia care. Int J of Soc Robots 7:393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Khosla R, Chu MT, Kachouie R, Yamada K, Yoshihiro F, Yamaguchi T, (2012) Interactive multimodal social robot for improving quality of care of elderly in Australian nursing homes. In: 20th ACM international conference on multimedia, MM 2012, October 29, 2012–November 2, 2012, Association for Computing Machinery, Nara, Japan, pp 1173–1176Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sakai Y, Nonaka Y, Yasuda K, Nakano YI (2012) Listener agent for elderly people with dementia. In: 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI’12, March 5, 2012–March 8, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery, Boston, MA, United states, pp 199–200Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wu YH, Faucounau V, Boulay M (2010) Robotic agents for supporting community-dwelling elderly people with memory complaints: perceived needs and preferences. Health Inform J 17:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bamford C, Bruce E (2000) Defining the outcomes of community care: the perspectives of older people with dementia and their carers. Aging Soc 20:543–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    McKillop J, Wilkinson H (2004) Make it easy on yourself! Advice to researchers from someone with dementia on being interviewed. Dementia 3:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bartlett R (2012) Modifying the diary interview method to research the lives of people with dementia. Qual Health Res 22:1717–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lloyd V, Gatherer A, Kalsy S (2006) Conducting qualitative interview research with people with expressive language difficulties. Qual Health Res 16:1386–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hubbard G, Downs MG, Tester S (2003) Including older people with dementia in research: challenges and strategies. Aging Mental Health 7:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Murphy K, Jordan F, Hunter A, Cooney A, Casey D (2015) Articulating the strategies for maximising the inclusion of people with dementia in qualitative research studies. Dementia 14(6):800–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cowdell F (2008) Engaging older people with dementia in research: myth or possibility. Int J Older People Nurs 3:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wing-Yue Louise G, McColl D, Nejat G (2014) Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults. Assist Technol Off J RESNA 26(3):140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sabanovic S, Bennett C, Chang W-L, Huber L (2013) PARO robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. Paper presented at the IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, Seattle, Washington, USA, 24–26 June 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Nursing and MidwiferyNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Loretto Heights School of NursingRegis UniversityDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations