Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Personality Traits and Willingness to Use a Robot: Extending Emic/Etic Personality Concept

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

Abstract

Examining personality traits can enhance the likelihood of a successful interaction between humans and robots in forthcoming work settings. Employing the emic/etic approach stands out as a crucial method for investigating personality types in the context of future environments. Currently, no study has explored the impact of this approach on individuals’ willingness to engage with a robot. In the present study, our aim is to determine whether emic characteristics can influence the connection between etic traits and the willingness to use a robot. In the current study, 367 male workers participated. All data were collected using valid and reliable questionnaires. The Five-Factor model of personality was regarded as etic personality characteristics, while the moderating roles of technology affinity and STARA were assessed as emic personality characteristics. The analytical process followed the method presented by Hayes et al. for analyzing moderators. Technology affinity, as a primary emic factor, exerts a moderating influence on the association between neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and the willingness to use robots. Conversely, STARA serves as a mediator exclusively in the relationship with neuroticism among workers. Notably, extroversion does not exhibit mediation with any of the emic factors. Both emic and etic personality characteristics were recognized as significant facilitators of the inclination to use robots. In addition to technology affinity and STARA, it is advisable to explore new emic traits and their interactive effects with etic personality characteristics.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Dean M, Spoehr J (2018) The fourth industrial revolution and the future of manufacturing work in Australia: challenges and opportunities. Labour Industry: J Social Economic Relations work 28(3):166–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Min J, Kim Y, Lee S, Jang T-W, Kim I, Song J (2019) The Fourth Industrial Revolution and its impact on Occupational Health and Safety, Worker’s compensation and labor conditions. Saf Health Work 10(4):400–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tsarouchi P, Makris S, Chryssolouris G (2016) Human–robot interaction review and challenges on task planning and programming. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 29(8):916–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng Y, Awan U, Ahmad S, Tan Z (2021) How do technological innovation and fiscal decentralization affect the environment? A story of the fourth industrial revolution and sustainable growth. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 162:120398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Magrini E, Ferraguti F, Ronga AJ, Pini F, De Luca A, Leali F (2020) Human-robot coexistence and interaction in open industrial cells. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 61:101846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Smids J, Nyholm S, Berkers H (2020) Robots in the Workplace: a threat to—or opportunity for—meaningful work? Philos Technol 33(3):503–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim W, Kim N, Lyons JB, Nam CS (2020) Factors affecting trust in high-vulnerability human-robot interaction contexts: a structural equation modelling approach. Appl Ergon 85:103056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ötting SK, Masjutin L, Steil JJ, Maier GW (2020) Let’s work together: a Meta-analysis on Robot Design features that enable successful human–Robot Interaction at Work. Hum Factors. 0018720820966433

  9. Kopp T, Baumgartner M, Kinkel S (2021) Success factors for introducing industrial human-robot interaction in practice: an empirically driven framework. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 112(3):685–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith ER, Sherrin S, Fraune MR, Šabanović S (2020) Positive emotions, more than anxiety or other negative emotions, predict willingness to Interact with Robots. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 46(8):1270–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Matthews G, Hancock PA, Lin J, Panganiban AR, Reinerman-Jones LE, Szalma JL et al (2021) Evolution and revolution: personality research for the coming world of robots, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems. Pers Indiv Differ 169:109969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Santamaria T, Nathan-Roberts D (2017) Personality measurement and design in Human-Robot Interaction: a systematic and critical review. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annual Meeting 61(1):853–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Babamiri M, Heidarimoghadam R, Ghasemi F, Tapak L, Mortezapour A (2022) Insights into the relationship between usability and willingness to use a robot in the future workplaces: studying the mediating role of trust and the moderating roles of age and STARA. PLoS ONE 17(6):e0268942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fetvadjiev VH, van de Vijver FJR (2015) Chapter 26 - measures of personality across cultures. In: Boyle GJ, Saklofske DH, Matthews G (eds) Measures of personality and social psychological constructs. Academic, San Diego, pp 752–776

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheung FM, van de Vijver FJ, Leong FT (2011) Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. Am Psychol 66(7):593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Walters ML, Koay KL (eds) (2006) ‘Doing the right thing wrong’ - Personality and tolerance to uncomfortable robot approaches. ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication; 6–8 Sept. 2006

  17. Kidwell B, Calhoun GL, Ruff HA, Parasuraman R (2012) Adaptable and Adaptive Automation for Supervisory Control of Multiple Autonomous Vehicles. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 56(1):428– 32

  18. Szalma JL, Taylor GS (2011) Individual differences in response to automation: the five factor model of personality. J Experimental Psychology: Appl 17(2):71–96

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gessl AS, Schlögl S, Mevenkamp N (2019) On the perceptions and acceptance of artificially intelligent robotics and the psychology of the future elderly. Behav Inform Technol 38(11):1068–1087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rossi S, Santangelo G, Staffa M, Varrasi S, Conti D, Nuovo AD (eds) (2018) Psychometric Evaluation Supported by a Social Robot: Personality Factors and Technology Acceptance. 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 27–31 Aug. 2018

  21. Esterwood C, Essenmacher K, Yang H, Zeng F, Robert LP (eds) (2021) A meta-analysis of human personality and robot acceptance in human-robot interaction. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2021

  22. Lin J, Matthews G, Wohleber RW, Funke GJ, Calhoun GL, Ruff HA et al (2020) Overload and automation-dependence in a multi-UAS simulation: Task demand and individual difference factors. J Experimental Psychology: Appl 26(2):218–235

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bernotat J, Eyssel F (eds) (2017) A robot at home — How affect, technology commitment, and personality traits influence user experience in an intelligent robotics apartment. 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 28 Aug.-1 Sept. 2017

  24. Salam H, Celiktutan O, Hupont I, Gunes H, Chetouani M (2016) Fully automatic analysis of engagement and its relationship to personality in human-robot interactions. IEEE Access 5:705–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Damholdt MF, Nørskov M, Yamazaki R, Hakli R, Hansen CV, Vestergaard C et al (2015) Attitudinal change in elderly citizens toward social robots: the role of personality traits and beliefs about robot functionality. Front Psychol 6:1701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kimoto M, Iio T, Shiomi M, Tanev I, Shimohara K, Hagita N (eds) (2016) Relationship between personality and robots’ interaction strategies in object reference conversations. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Electronics and Software Science (ICESS Japan; 2016

  27. Looije R, Neerincx MA, Cnossen F (2010) Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: design and evaluation of social behaviors. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(6):386–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Takayama L, Pantofaru C (eds) (2009) Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; 2009;10–15 Oct. 2009

  29. Lyons JB, Nam CS, Jessup SA, Vo TQ, Wynne KT (eds) (2020) The role of individual differences as predictors of trust in autonomous security robots. IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS); 2020: IEEE

  30. Morsunbul U (2019) Human-robot interaction: how do personality traits affect attitudes towards robot? J Hum Sci 16(2):499–504

    Google Scholar 

  31. Alarcon GM, Capiola A, Pfahler MD (2021) Chapter 7 - the role of human personality on trust in human-robot interaction. In: Nam CS, Lyons JB (eds) Trust in Human-Robot. Academic, Interaction, pp 159–178

    Google Scholar 

  32. Esterwood C, Essenmacher K, Yang H, Zeng F, Robert L (2021) A Meta-analysis of human personality and Robot Acceptance in Human-Robot Interaction

  33. Hentout A, Aouache M, Maoudj A, Akli I (2019) Human–robot interaction in industrial collaborative robotics: a literature review of the decade 2008–2017. Adv Robot 33(15–16):764–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosen PH, Wischniewski S (eds) Task Design in Human-Robot-Interaction scenarios– challenges from a human factors perspective. Advances in human factors and systems Interaction; 2018 2018//; Cham: Springer International Publishing

  35. Cheung FM (2004) Use of Western and indigenously developed personality tests in Asia. Appl Psychol 53(2):173–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mykota DB Culture and Personality. The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences2020. p. 95– 9

  37. Brougham D, Haar J, Smart Technology (2017) Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and algorithms (STARA): employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. J Manage Organ 24(2):239–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nam T (2019) Citizen attitudes about job replacement by robotic automation. Futures 109:39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Berg A, Buffie EF, Zanna L-F (2018) Should we fear the robot revolution? (the correct answer is yes). J Monet Econ 97:117–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McClure PK (2017) You’re fired, says the Robot: the rise of automation in the Workplace, technophobes, and fears of unemployment. Social Sci Comput Rev 36(2):139–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. You S (2018) Jr. LPR. Human-Robot Similarity and Willingness to Work with a Robotic Co-worker. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; Chicago, IL, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; p. 251–60

  42. Meissner A, Trübswetter A, Conti-Kufner AS, Schmidtler J (2020) Friend or foe? Understanding Assembly Workers’ Acceptance of human-robot collaboration. J Hum-Robot Interact 10(1):Article

    Google Scholar 

  43. Franke T, Attig C, Wessel D (2019) A personal resource for Technology Interaction: Development and Validation of the Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale. Int J Human–Computer Interact 35(6):456–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Attig C, Wessel D, Franke T (eds) Assessing personality differences in Human-Technology Interaction: an overview of key self-report scales to predict successful Interaction2017; Cham: Springer International Publishing

  45. Aldás-Manzano J, Ruiz‐Mafé C, Sanz‐Blas S (2009) Exploring individual personality factors as drivers of M‐shopping acceptance. Industrial Manage Data Syst 109(6):739–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hesse LS, Walter G, Tietze S (2020) Influence of personality, affinity for technology and risk awareness on technology acceptance using the example of voice control. Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch und Computer: Association for Computing Machinery; p. 211–21

  47. Bröhl C, Nelles J, Brandl C, Mertens A, Nitsch V (2019) Human–Robot collaboration Acceptance Model: development and comparison for Germany, Japan, China and the USA. Int J Social Robot 11(5):709–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bröhl C, Nelles J, Brandl C, Mertens A, Schlick CM (eds) (2016) TAM Reloaded: A Technology Acceptance Model for Human-Robot Cooperation in Production systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  49. Church AT (2016) Personality traits across cultures. Curr Opin Psychol 8:22–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Benet-Martínez V (2021) Chapter 10 - culture and personality processes: Basic tenets and current directions. In: Rauthmann JF (ed) The Handbook of Personality Dynamics and processes. Academic, pp 247–271

  51. Carlo G, Knight GP, Roesch SC, Opal D, Davis A (2014) Personality across cultures: a critical analysis of big five research and current directions. APA handbook of multicultural psychology, vol 1: theory and research. APA handbooks in psychology®. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, pp 285–298

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Morris MW, Leung K, Ames D, Lickel B (1999) Views from inside and outside: integrating Emic and Etic insights about Culture and Justice Judgment. Acad Manage Rev 24(4):781–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lu L, Cai R, Gursoy D (2019) Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale. Int J Hospitality Manage 80:36–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rammstedt B, John OP (2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. J Res Pers 41(1):203–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Affinity for Technology Interaction (ATI) Scale (Persian Language) [Available from: https://ati-scale.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ati-scale_persian_2022-02-25.pdf

  56. Hayes AF (2012) PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. University of Kansas, KS

  57. Burtaverde V, Iliescu D (2019) Emic vs etic frame of reference personality assessment in the prediction of work-related outcomes. Career Dev Int 24(7):686–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Priyadharshini SK, Ganesh LS, Kondaveeti B, Personality (2018) Culture and Career Assessment: the need for an Indigenous Tool in India. Psychol Developing Soc 30(2):262–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wakefield KL, Blodgett JG (1999) Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors. Psychol Mark 16(1):51–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Saqib S, Abrar M, Sabir HM, Bashir M, Baig SA (2015) Impact of tangible and intangible rewards on organizational commitment: evidence from the textile sector of Pakistan. Am J Industrial Bus Manage 5(03):138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Djamasbi S, Strong DM, Dishaw M (2010) Affect and acceptance: examining the effects of positive mood on the technology acceptance model. Decis Support Syst 48(2):383–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Djamasbi S, Strong DM (2008) The effect of positive mood on intention to use computerized decision aids. Inf Manag 45(1):43–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Beaudry A, Pinsonneault A (2010) The other side of acceptance: studying the direct and indirect effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Q. 689–710

  64. Liu S, Lithopoulos A, Zhang C-Q, Garcia-Barrera MA, Rhodes RE (2021) Personality and perceived stress during COVID-19 pandemic: testing the mediating role of perceived threat and efficacy. Pers Indiv Differ 168:110351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Eschen-Léguedé S, Knappe K, Keye D (2011) Aspects of personality in highly automated Human-Maschine-Teams-Development of a questionaire

  66. Schüssel F, Honold F, Weber M (2013) Influencing factors on multimodal interaction during selection tasks. J Multimodal User Interfaces 7(4):299–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Mirnig N, Stadler S, Stollnberger G, Giuliani M, Tscheligi M (eds) (2016) Robot humor: How self-irony and Schadenfreude influence people’s rating of robot likability. 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); 26–31 Aug. 2016

  68. Guo J, Zhang J, Pang W (2021) Parental warmth, rejection, and creativity: the mediating roles of openness and dark personality traits. Pers Indiv Differ 168:110369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Dincher M, Wagner V (2021) Teaching in Times of COVID-19: Determinants of Teachers’ Educational Technology Use

  70. Brück Y, Niermann D, Trende A, Lüdtke A (eds) (2021) Investigation of Personality Traits and Driving Styles for Individualization of Autonomous Vehicles.; 2021 2021//; Cham: Springer International Publishing

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Center for Health Sciences, Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

    Mohammad Babamiri & Rashid Heidarimoghadam

  2. Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, Abadan University of Medical Sciences, Abadan, Iran

    Fakhradin Ghasemi

  3. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public of Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

    Leili Tapak

  4. Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

    Alireza Mortezapour

Authors
  1. Mohammad Babamiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rashid Heidarimoghadam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fakhradin Ghasemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leili Tapak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alireza Mortezapour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alireza Mortezapour.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Babamiri, M., Heidarimoghadam, R., Ghasemi, F. et al. Personality Traits and Willingness to Use a Robot: Extending Emic/Etic Personality Concept. Int J of Soc Robotics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01129-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01129-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation