International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 451–460 | Cite as

Design for Acceptability: Improving Robots’ Coexistence in Human Society

  • Pericle SalviniEmail author
  • Cecilia Laschi
  • Paolo Dario


This paper is about design and acceptability of service robots that interact with individuals and coexist in environments inhabited by humans. In its current usage, we argue, the term acceptability is “user-specific” or “user-centred”, that is, it is based exclusively on the study of the relationships between a product and its users. In this paper, we argue that resistance towards service robots operating in public environments may also originate from properties which are not related to the user. For example, fear of the robot may generate resistance at the bystander level; lack of legal regulations for robots’ deployment may generate resistance at the legal level; concerns about possible job reductions caused by the robot may generate resistance at the worker level. Therefore, it is necessary to go beyond the “user-centred” notion of acceptability and widen its scope so as to include any kind of potential resistance and not just those originating from the users. By adopting a broader view of the possible critical factors affecting service robots’ acceptability, it will be possible to design robots that are good for users and acceptable to other people and society.


Acceptability Aesthetics Ethics Legal Social Human factors Service robot Design methodology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Macek K, Vasquez D, Fraichard T, Siegwart R (2008) Safe vehicle navigation in dynamic urban environment: a hierarchical approach. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE IROS workshop on planning, perception and navigation for intelligent vehicles. IEEE/RSJ 2008 international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 08), September 22–26, Nice (France) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lidoris G, Rohrmuller F, Wollherr D (2009) The autonomous city explorer (ACE) project—mobile robot navigation in highly populated urban environments. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Kobe, Japan, May 12–17 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer A, Klasing K, Lidoris G, Mühlbauer Q, Rohrmüller F, Sosnowski S, Xu T, Kühnlenz K, Wollherr D, Buss M (2009) The autonomous city explorer: towards natural human-robot interaction in urban environments. Int J Soc Robot 1:127–140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guo L, Zhang M, Wang Y, Liu G (2006) Environmental perception of mobile robot. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEe international conference on information acquisition, August 20–23, Weihai, Shandong, China Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desaraju V, Ro HC, Yang M (2009) Partial order techniques for vehicle collision avoidance: application to autonomous roundabout. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Kobe, Japan, May 12–17, 2009 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caballero F, Merino L, Gil P, Maza I, Ollero A (2008) A probabilistic framework for entire WSN localization using a mobile robot. Robot Auton Syst 56:798–806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sato E, Yamaguchi T, Harashima F (2007) Natural interface using pointing behavior for human-robot gestural interaction. IEEE Trans Indust Electron 54(2):1105–1112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Breazeal C (2004) Function meets style: insights from emotion theory applied to HRI. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part C, Appl Rev 34(2):187–194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cañamero L (2005) Emotion understanding from the perspective of autonomous robots research. Neural Netw 18:445–455. Special Issue CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Picard RW (2003) Affective computing: challenges. Int J Human-Comput Stud 59(1–2):55–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CyberCars project. Accessed June 2010
  12. 12. Accessed June 2010
  13. 13.
    DustBot project. Networked and cooperating robots for urban hygiene, FP6-045299. Accessed June 2010
  14. 14.
    URUS Project. Ubiquitous networking robotics in urban settings—6FP ICT STREP (Project number: IST 045062). Accessed June 2010
  15. 15.
    Gao C, Sands M, Spletzer JR (2010) Towards autonomous wheelchair systems in urban environments. In: Howard A, Iagnemma K, Kelly A (eds) Field and service robotics: results of the 7th international conference. Springer tracts in advanced robotics. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Göller M, Steinhardt F, Kerscher T, Zöllner JM, Dillmann R (2009) Robust navigation system based on RFID transponder barriers for the interactive behavior-operated shopping trolley InBOT. Int J Indust Robot. doi: 10.1108/01439910910957156 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Federation of Robotics (IFR). Accessed July 2010
  18. 18.
    Hannaford B (2000) Feeling is believing: a history of telerobotics. In: Goldberg K (ed.) The robot in the garden: telerobotics and telepistemology in the age of the Internet. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herrmann G, Melhuish C (2010) Towards safety in human robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 2:217–219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giuliani M, Lenz C, Müller T, Rickert M, Knoll A (2010) Design principles for safety in human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 2:253–274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2009) The USUS evaluation framework for human-robot interaction. In: AISB2009: proceedings of the symposium on new frontiers in human-robot interaction Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yanco HA, Drury JL, Scholtz J (2004) Beyond usability evaluation: analysis of human-robot interaction at a major robotics competition. Human-Computer Interact 19(1–2):117–149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dillon A (2001) User acceptance of information technology. In: Karwowski W (ed) Encyclopaedia of human factors and ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, London Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scholtz J (2003) Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’03) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vicente K (2004) The human factor: revolutionizing the way people live with technology. Routledge, London Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sabanovic S, Michalowski MP, Simmons R (2006) Robots in the wild: observing human-robot social interaction outside the lab. In: AMC’06, Istambul, Turkey Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richardson S (1987) Operationalising usability and acceptability: a methodological review. New methods in applied ergonomics. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international occupational ergonomics symposium, Zadar, Yugoslavia, 14–16 April 1987 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovation. 5th edn. Free Press, New York Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alavi M, Joachimsthaler EA (1992) Revisiting DSS implementation research: a meta analysis of the literature and suggestion for research. MIS Q16(1):95–116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dario P, Guglielmelli E, Allotta B, Carrozza MC (1996) Robotics for medical applications. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 3(3):44–56. doi: 10.1109/100.540149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Apostolos MK (1985) Exploring user acceptance of a robotic arm: an aesthetic orientation. J Am Paraplegia Soc 8(3):51–4 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dario P, Guglielmelli E, Genovese V, Toro M (1996) Robot assistants: applications and evolution. Robot Auton Syst 18:225–234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Welch KC, Lahiri U, Warren Z, Sarkar N (2010) An approach to the design of socially acceptable robots for children with autism spectrum disorders. Int J Soc Robot. doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0063-x Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2008) The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. J Phys Agents 2(2):33–40 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Young JE, Hawkins R, Sharlin E, Igarashi T (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1:95–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sung JY, Grinter RE, Christensen HI Domestic robot ecology an initial framework to unpack long-term acceptance of robots at home. Int J Soc Robot. doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0065-8
  38. 38.
    Salvini P, Ciaravella G, Yu W, Ferri G, Manzi A, Laschi C, Mazzolai B, Oh R, Dario P (2010) How safe are robots in urban environments? Bullying a service robot. In: Ro-Man 2010, 19th IEEE international symposium in robot and human interactive communication, September 12–15, 2010, Viareggio, Italy Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dawar N, Parker P (1994) Marketing universals: Consumers’ use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retail reputation as signals of product quality. J Mark 58(4):81–95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Forsythe S, Kim JO, Petee T (1999) Product cue usage in two Asian markets: a cross-cultural comparison. Asia Pac J Manag 16:275–292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Forlizzi J, DiSalvo CF (2006) Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In: HRI Conference, pp. 258–265 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tractinsky N, Katz AS, Ikar D (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interact Comput 13(2):127–145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Norman DA (2004) Emotional design. Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Isen AM (1993) Positive affect and decision making. In: Lewis M Haviland JM (eds) Handbook of emotions. Guilford, New York Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bartneck C, Forlizzi J (2004) Shaping human-robot interaction: understanding the social aspects of intelligent robotic products. In: CHI 2004 workshop, 24–29 April 2004, Vienna, Austria Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Millbrae. Caiibmia. USA, October 31–November 2, 2003 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35 (K.F. MacDorman and T. Minato, Translation) Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dario P, Guglielmelli E, Laschi C, (2001) Humanoids and personal robots: design and experiments. J Robot Syst 18(12):673–690. Special Issue: Biorobotics and Humanoid Robotics zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Breazeal CL (2005) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Salvini P, Armato A, Mannari I, Mazzolai B, Laschi C, Dario P (2007) A Methodology for designing acceptability in relation to a service robot physical appearance. In: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on human-friendly welfare robotic systems. KAIST, Daejeon, Korea, October 21–23 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Csikszentmihalyi M, Rochberg-Halton E (1981) The meaning of things: domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Li D, Rau PL, Li Y (2010) A Cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int J Soc Robot 2:175–186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):177–190 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2008) Prediction of human behaviour in human-robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Trans Robot 24(2) Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bartneck C (2004). From fiction to science—a cultural reflection of social robots. In: Forlizzi J, Bartneck C (eds) CHI2004 workshop on shaping human-robot interaction—understanding the social aspects of intelligent robotic products, April 25, 2004, Vienna Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nagenborg M, Capurro R, Weber J, Pingel C (2007) Ethical regulations on robotics in Europe. AI & Society 22(3):349–366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6:175–183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lehman-Wilzig SN (1981) Frankenstein unbound: toward a legal definition of artificial intelligence. FUTURES: J Forecast Plan 13(6):442–457 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Salvini P, Teti G, Spadoni E, Frediani E, Boccalatte S, Nocco L, Mazzolai B, Laschi C, Comandé G, Rossi E, Carrozza P, Dario P (2010) On robots and legal regulations: an investigation on how the law is impacting the deployment of robots in urban environments. Adv Robot. doi: 10.1163/016918610X527211 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Weng Y-H, Chen C-H, Sun C-T (2007) The legal crisis of next generation robots: on safety intelligence. In: ICAIL’07, June 4–8, Palo Alto, CA USA Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thrun S, (2004) Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human-Comput Interac19:20 Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rifkin J (1995) The end of work—the decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the post-market era. Tarcher/Putnam, New York Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Christaller T, Mock M, Datteri E, Laschi C, Salvini P, Tamburrini G, Verruggio G, Warwick K deliverable D1: analysis of the state of the art in emerging technologies for the integration of human and artificial entities. ETHICBOTS, Project funded by the European Community as Coordination Action Contract SAS 6 Nr 017759 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARTS labScuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPontederaItaly

Personalised recommendations