Advertisement

Mind Perception of a Sociable Humanoid Robot: A Comparison Between Elderly and Young Adults

  • Maryam AlimardaniEmail author
  • Sonia Qurashi
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1093)

Abstract

Sociable robots are slowly entering domains such as education and healthcare. As we are exposing our youth and elderly to these new intelligent technologies, it is important to understand their perception and attitudes towards robots. This study investigates the differences between elderly and young adults in ascribing mind perception to a sociable humanoid robot. Both subjective and behavioral measurements were employed to investigate the differences. Several trends were found; elderlies attributed higher scores of mind perception to the robot, whereas young adults seemed to have a more positive attitude towards it. Elderlies seemed to apply human social models of interaction, whereas young adults perceived a master-slave relationship between humans and the robot. Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was found between mind perception and attitude toward the robot for both groups.

Keywords

Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) Sociable robots Mind perception Humanoid robot Elderly 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Banks, M.R., Banks, W.A.: The effects of group and individual animal-assisted therapy on loneliness in residents of long-term care facilities. Anthrozoös 18(4), 396–408 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., Senft, E., Belpaeme, T.: Social robot tutoring for child second language learning. In: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 231–238. IEEE Press (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turkle, S., Taggart, W., Kidd, C.D., Dasté, O.: Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connect. Sci. 18(4), 347–361 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sparrow, R.: 19 can machines be people? Reflections on the turing triage test. In: Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, pp. 301–314 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharkey, A., Sharkey, N.: Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf. Technol. 14(1), 27–40 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horstmann, A.C., Bock, N., Linhuber, E., Szczuka, J.M., Straßmann, C., Krämer, N.C.: Do a robot’s social skills and its objection discourage interactants from switching the robot off? PLoS ONE 13(7), e0201581 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A.M., Krämer, N.C., Hoffmann, L., Sobieraj, S., Eimler, S.C.: An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5(1), 17–34 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bartneck, C., Rosalia, C., Menges, R., Deckers, I.: Robot abuse–a limitation of the media equation. In: Proceedings of the Interact 2005 Workshop on Agent Abuse, Rome (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kahn Jr., P.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N.G., Severson, R.L., Gill, B.T., Ruckert, J.H., Shen, S.: “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev. Psychol. 48(2), 303 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gray, H.M., Gray, K., Wegner, D.M.: Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315(5812), 619 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gray, K., Young, L., Waytz, A.: Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol. Inq. 23(2), 101–124 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E.R.: Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 72–78. ACM (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K., Bartneck, C.: Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(3), 347–360 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T.: On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114(4), 864 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2(4), 361–375 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Broadbent, E., Lee, Y.I., Stafford, R.Q., Kuo, I.H., MacDonald, B.A.: Mental schemas of robots as more human-like are associated with higher blood pressure and negative emotions in a human-robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3(3), 291 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Czaja, S.J., Sharit, J.: Age differences in attitudes toward computers. J. Gerontol. Ser. B: Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 53(5), P329–P340 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stafford, R.Q., MacDonald, B.A., Jayawardena, C., Wegner, D.M., Broadbent, E.: Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(1), 17–32 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, R., Patience, A., Knock, B., Kerse, N., Day, K., MacDonald, B.A.: Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australas. J. Ageing 31(2), 115–120 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferrari, F., Paladino, M.P., Jetten, J.: Blurring human–machine distinctions: anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8(2), 287–302 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubin, A.M., Perse, E.M., Powell, R.A.: Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Hum. Commun. Res. 12(2), 155–180 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Asquith, P.J.: Of bonds and boundaries: what is the modern role of anthropomorphism in primatological studies? Am. J. Primatol. 73(3), 238–244 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takayama, L., Pantofaru, C.: Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5495–5502. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tanibe, T., Hashimoto, T., Karasawa, K.: We perceive a mind in a robot when we help it. PLoS ONE 12(7), e0180952 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Graaf, M.M., Allouch, S.B., van Dijk, J.A.: Long-term acceptance of social robots in domestic environments: insights from a user’s perspective. In: 2016 AAAI Spring Symposium Series (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leite, I., McCoy, M., Lohani, M., Ullman, D., Salomons, N., Stokes, C., Rivers, S., Scassellati, B.: Emotional storytelling in the classroom: individual versus group interaction between children and robots. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 75–82. ACM (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive Science and AITilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options