Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Acceptance of Robots in Different Occupational Fields: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robots today are working in both industrial and service sectors. Robots have evolved from one-function automatons to intelligent systems of versatile features, and the new generation of service robots are sharing same space and tasks with humans. The aim of this systematic literature review was to examine how the social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields has been studied and what kinds of attitudes the studies have discovered regarding robots as workers. The data were collected in October 2016 from four major bibliographic databases. Preliminary search results included 336 research articles from which 42 were selected to the final research through inclusion criteria. Of the studies, 69% concerned robots working in health and social services. Positive attitudes occurred more frequently in studies exposing participants to robots. Robots were considered appropriate for different work tasks. Telepresence robots were highly approved by health care staff. The criticism was directed to decreasing human contact and unnecessary deployment of new technology. Our results imply that attitudes toward robots are positive in many fields of work. Yet there is a need for validated measures and nationally representative data that would help us to further our understanding of social acceptance of robots in work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the data

  1. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P (2017) Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. NBER Working Paper No. w23285. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2941263. Accessed 30 June 2017

  2. * Alaiad A, Zhou LN (2014) The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: an empirical investigation. Int J Med Inf 83(11):825–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.07.003

  3. Ajzen I (1987) Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 20. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60411-6

  4. Bauer M (ed) (1997) Resistance to new technology: nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beck S (2016) The problem of ascribing legal responsibility in the case of robotics. AI Soc 31:473–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0624-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. * Beedholm K, Frederiksen K, Skovsgaard Frederiksen AM, Lomborg K (2015) Attitudes to a robot bathtub in Danish elder care: A hermeneutic interview study. Nurs Health Sci 17(3):280–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12184

  7. * Bettinelli M, Lei YX, Beane M, Mackey C, Liesching TN (2015) Does robotic telerounding enhance nurse-physician collaboration satisfaction about care decisions? Telemed J e-Health 21(8):637–643. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.0162

  8. * Boman IL, Bartfai A (2015) The first step in using a robot in brain injury rehabilitation: Patients’ and health-care professionals’ perspective. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 10(5):365–370. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.913712

  9. 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):319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2009.08.02.002.00

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brynjolfsson E, McAfee A (2014) The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies, 1st edn. WW Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. * Carlsen H, Johansson L, Wikman-Svahn P, Dreborg KH (2014) Co-evolutionary scenarios for creative prototyping of future robot systems for civil protection. Technol Forecast Soc Change 84:93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.016

  13. Chen Y (2011) Do the Chi-square test and Fisher’s Exact test agree in determining extreme for 2 \(\times \) 2 tables? Am Stat 65(4):239–245. https://doi.org/10.1198/tas.2011.10115

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cherry CO, Chumbler NR, Richards K, Huff A, Wu D, Tilghman LM, Butler A (2017) Expanding stroke telerehabilitation services to rural veterans: a qualitative study on patient experiences using the robotic stroke therapy delivery and monitoring system program. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 12(1):21–27. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2015.1061613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dautenhahn K (2007) Methodology & themes of human-robot interaction: a growing research field. Int J Adv Robot Syst 4(1):103–108. https://doi.org/10.5772/5702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35:982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. * Destephe M, Brandao M, Kishi T, Zecca M, Hashimoto K, Takanishi A (2015) Walking in the uncanny valley: importance of the attractiveness on the acceptance of a robot as a working partner. Front Psychol 6(FEB):204. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00204

  18. Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  19. * Eftring H, Frennert S (2016) Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors. Z Gerontol Geriatr 49(4):274–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1064-7

  20. Eurobarometer (2012) Public attitudes towards robots. Special Eurobarometer 382: European commission. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_382_en.pdf. Assessed 29 June 2017

  21. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT (2010) Attitude structure. In: Baumeister RF, Finkel EJ (eds) Advanced social psychology: the state of the science. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 177–216

    Google Scholar 

  22. * Fazekas G, Horvath M, Toth A (2006) A novel robot training system designed to supplement upper limb physiotherapy of patients with spastic hemiparesis. Int J Rehabil Res 29:251–254. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mrr.0000230050.16604.d9

  23. Fazio RH (1995) Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. Attitude Strength Anteced Conseq 4:247–282

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fernández-Macías E (2012) Job polarization in Europe? Changes in the employment structure and job quality, 1995–2007. Work Occup 39(2):157–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888411427078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fisher RA (1932) Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. * Flynn LL, Bush TR, Sikorskii A, Mukherjee R, Wyatt G (2011) Understanding the role of stimulation in reflexology: development and testing of a robotic device. Eur J Cancer Care 20(5):686–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2011.01268.x

  28. Frey CB, Osborne MA (2013, September 18). The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? OMS Working papers. http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf. Assessed 29 June (2017)

  29. Fuji S, Date M, Nagai Y, Yasuhara Y, Tanioka T, Ren F (2011) Research on the possibility of humanoid robots to assist in medical activities in nursing homes and convalescent wards. In: 7th International conference on natural language processing and knowledge engineering, pp 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1109/NLPKE.2011.6138243

  30. * Gácsi M, Szakadát S, Miklósi Á (2013) Assistance dogs provide a useful behavioral model to enrich communicative skills of assistance robots. Front Psychol 4:971. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00971

  31. * Gamecho B, Silva H, Guerreiro J, Gardeazabal L, Abascal J (2015) A context-aware application to increase elderly users compliance with physical rehabilitation exercises at home via animatronic biofeedback. J Med Syst 39(11):135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-015-0296-1

  32. * Gerling K, Hebesberger D, Dondrup C, Körtner T, Hanheide M (2016) Robot deployment in long-term care: case study on using a mobile robot to support physiotherapy. Z Gerontol Geriatr 49(4):288–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1065-6

  33. Gjevjon ER, Romoren TI, Kjos BO, Helleso R (2013) Continuity of care in home health-care practice: two management paradoxes. J Nurs Manag 21:182–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01366.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. * Gustafsson C, Svanberg C, Müllersdorf M (2015) Using a robotic cat in dementia care. A pilot study. J Gerontol Nurs 41(10):46–56. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20150806-44

  35. * Hansen BG (2015) Robotic milking-farmer experiences and adoption rate in Jæren, Norway. J Rural Stud 41:109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.08.004

  36. Heerink M (2011) Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957704

  37. Holm SG, Angelsen RO (2014) A descriptive retrospective study of time consumption in home care services: How do employees use their working time? BMC Health Serv Res 14:439–448. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. ISO 8373:2012 Robots and robotic devices—vocabulary. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:8373:ed-2:v1:en. Accessed 29 June 2017

  39. * Jenkins S, Draper H (2015) Care, monitoring, and companionship: views on care robots from older people and their carers. Int J Soc Robot 7(5):673–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0322-y

  40. Joffe H (2003) Risk: From perception to social representation. British J Soc Psychol 42:55–73. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603763276126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. * Jones VS, Cohen RC (2008) Two decades of minimally invasive pediatric surgery-taking stock. J Pediatr Surg 43(9):1653–1659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.01.006

  42. Jung J, Song H, Kim Y, Im H, Oh S (2017) Intrusion of software robots into journalism: the public’s and journalists’ perceptions of news written by algorithms and human journalists. Comp Hum Behav 71:291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kachouie R, Sedighadeli S, Khosla R, Chu MT (2014) Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review. Int J Hum Comput Interact 30(5):369–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.873278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. * Katz JE, Halpern D (2014) Attitudes towards robots suitability for various jobs as affected robot appearance. Behav Inf Technol 33(9):941–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.783115

  45. King WR, He J (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 43(6):740–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. * Koceski S, Koceska N (2016) Evaluation of an assistive telepresence robot for elderly healthcare. J Med Syst 40(5):121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-016-0481-x

  47. * Kramer NM, Demaerschalk BM (2014) A novel application of teleneurology: robotic telepresence in supervision of neurology trainees. Telemed J e-Health 20(12):1087–1092. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.0043

  48. * Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Loutfi A, Severinson-Eklundh K (2011) An exploratory study of health professionals’ attitudes about robotic telepresence technology. J Technol in Hum Serv 29(4):263–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2011.639509

  49. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Krebs HI (2008) Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 22(2):111–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968307305457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lee S, Kiesler S, Lau IY, Chiu CY (2005) Human mental models of humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 2767–2772. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2005.1570532

  51. * Lindsay C, Commander J, Findlay P, Bennie M, Corcoran ED, Van Der Meer R (2014) ‘Lean’, new technologies and employment in public health services: employees’ experiences in the national health service. Int J Hum Resour Manag 25(21):2941–2956. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.948900

  52. * Louie WYG, McColl D, Nejat G (2014) Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults. Assist Technol 26(3):140–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2013.869703

  53. * Lu EC, Wang RH, Hebert D, Boger J, Galea MP, Mihailidis A (2011) The development of an upper limb stroke rehabilitation robot: identification of clinical practices and design requirements through a survey of therapists. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 6(5):420–431. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.544370

  54. Malhotra Y, Galletta DF (1999, January). Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences HICSS-32. IEEE, pp 14. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1999.772658

  55. * Manfrè A, Infantino I, Vella F, Gaglio S (2016) An automatic system for humanoid dance creation. Biol Inspired Cognit Archit 15:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2015.09.009

  56. * Mann JA, Macdonald BA, Kuo I, Li X, Broadbent E (2015) People respond better to robots than computer tablets delivering healthcare instructions. Comput Hum Behav 43:112–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.029

  57. Manyika J, Chui M, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Bisson P, Marrs A (2013) Disruptive technologies: advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. McKinsey Global Institute, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  58. Marchant GE, Allenby B, Arkin R, Barrett ET, Borenstein J, Gaudet LM, Kittrie O, Lin P, Lucas GR, O’Meara R, Silberman J (2011) International governance of autonomous military robots. Colum Sci Tech L Rev 12:272

    Google Scholar 

  59. McDonald JH (2014) Handbook of biological statistics, 3rd edn. Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  60. * Mendez I, Jong M, Keays-White D, Turner G (2013) The use of remote presence for health care delivery in a northern inuit community: a feasibility study. Int J Circumpolar Health 72:21112. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21112

  61. * Moon A, Danielson P, Van der Loos HFM (2012) Survey-based discussions on morally contentious applications of interactive robotics. Int J Soc Robot 4(1):77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0120-0

  62. Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Al Mahmud A, Dong JJ (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technol Educ Learn 1:1–7. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. * Nestel D, Sains P, Wetzel CM, Nolan C, Tay A, Kneebone RL, Darzi AW (2007) Communication skills for mobile remote presence technology in clinical interactions. J Telemed Telecare 13(2):100–104. https://doi.org/10.1258/135763307780096168

  64. * Nieuwenhuisen M, Behnke S (2013) Human-like interaction skills for the mobile communication robot Robotinho. Int J Soc Robot 5(4):549–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0206-y

  65. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. AI Soc 20(2):138–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Olson JM, Maio GR (2003) Attitudes in social behavior. Handbook of psychology. Three 13:299–325

    Google Scholar 

  67. Palep JH (2009) Robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery. J Minim Access Surg 5(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.51313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Parsons HM, Kearsley GP (1982) Robotics and human factors: Current status and future prospects. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 24(5):535–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088202400504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. * 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

  70. Prange GB, Jannink MJ, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Hermens HJ, IJzerman MJ (2006) Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 43(2):171–84. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2005.04.0076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. * Pripfl J, Körtner T, Batko-Klein D, Hebesberger D, Weninger M, Gisinger C (2016) Social service robots to support independent living: experiences from a field trial. Z Gerontol Geriatr 49(4):282–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1067-4

  72. Ramnath VR, Khazeni N (2014) Centralized monitoring and virtual consultant models of tele-ICU care: a side-by-side review. Telemed J E Health 20(10):962–71. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.0024

  73. Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Pearman A, Greenhalgh J, Long A, Gardner P, Gill A, Jayne D, Dowding D (2016) Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams. Cognit Technol Work 18(2):423–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0368-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. * Reich-Stiebert N, Eyssel F (2015) Learning with educational companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for education robots. Int J Soc Robot 7(5):875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9

  75. * Reynolds EM, Grujovski A, Wright T, Foster M, Reynolds HN (2012) Utilization of robotic “remote presence” technology within North American intensive care units. Telemed J E-Health 18(7):507–515. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2011.0206

  76. * Šabanović S (2014) Inventing Japan’s ‘robotics culture’: the repeated assembly of science, technology, and culture in social robotics. Soc Stud Sci 44(3):342–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713509704

  77. * Sabelli AM, Kanda T (2016) Robovie as a mascot: a qualitative study for long-term presence of robots in a shopping mall. Int J Soc Robot 8(2):211–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0332-9

  78. * Saborowski M, Kollak I (2015) “How do you care for technology?” Care professionals’ experiences with assistive technology in care of the elderly. Technol Forecast Soc Change 93:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.05.006

  79. * Schulman CI, Marttos A, Graygo J, Rothenberg P, Alonso G, Gibson S, Augenstein J, Kelly E (2013) Usability of telepresence in a level 1 trauma center. Telemed J E-Health 19(4):248–251. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2012.0102

  80. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Sharts-Hopko NC (2014) The coming revolution in personal care robotics: what does it mean for nurses? Nurs Adm Q 38(1):5–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Suprem A, Mahalik N, Kim K (2013) A review on application of technology systems, standards and interfaces for agriculture and food sector. Comput Stand Interfaces 35(4):355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2012.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Taipale S, Luca FD, Sarrica M, Fortunati L (2015) Robot shift from industrial production to social reproduction. In: Vincent J, Taipale S, Sapio B, Lugano G, Fortunati L (eds) Social robots from a human perspective. Springer, Switzerland, pp 11–24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  84. Takayama L, Ju W, Nass C (2008) Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: What everyday people think robots should do. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349827

  85. * Tay B, Jung Y, Park T (2014) When stereotypes meet robots: The double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human-robot interaction. Comput Hum Behav 38:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.014

  86. Todorov A, Fiske S, Prentice D (eds) (2011) Social neuroscience: toward understanding the underpinnings of the social mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  87. Trevelyan J (1999) Redefining robotics for the new millennium. Int J Robot Res 18(12):1211–1223. https://doi.org/10.1177/02783649922067816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Wagner W, Kronberger N, Seifert F (2002) Collective symbolic coping with new technology: knowledge, images and public discourse. British J Soc Psychol 41(3):323–343. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760344241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. * Wasen K (2010) Replacement of highly educated surgical assistants by robot technology in working life: paradigm shift in the service sector. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):431–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0062-y

  91. * Waytz A, Norton MI (2014) Botsourcing and outsourcing: robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking-not feeling-jobs. Emotion 14(2):434–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036054

  92. Weng Y, Chen C, Sun C (2009) Toward the human-robot co-existence society: on safety intelligence for next generation robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:267–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0019-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. * Wolbring G, Yumakulov S (2014) Social robots: Views of staff of a disability service organization. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0229-z

  94. Young LB, Chan PS, Cram P (2011) Staff acceptance of tele-ICU coverage: a systematic review. Chest 139(2):279–288. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-1795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. * Zanchettin AM, Bascetta L, Rocco P (2013) Acceptability of robotic manipulators in shared working environments through human-like redundancy resolution. Appl Ergon 44(6):982–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.028

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Academy of Finland (grant number 292980).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, 33014, Tampere, Finland

    Nina Savela, Tuuli Turja & Atte Oksanen

Authors
  1. Nina Savela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tuuli Turja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Atte Oksanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atte Oksanen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Savela, N., Turja, T. & Oksanen, A. Social Acceptance of Robots in Different Occupational Fields: A Systematic Literature Review. Int J of Soc Robotics 10, 493–502 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0452-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0452-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation