Robot Shift from Industrial Production to Social Reproduction

  • Sakari TaipaleEmail author
  • Federico de Luca
  • Mauro Sarrica
  • Leopoldina Fortunati


This chapter analyses people’s attitudes towards the use of robots in the different domains of life and, specifically, in the domain of social reproduction. The analysis is based on Eurobarometer 382 “Public Attitudes towards Robots” data (N = 26,751), which was carried out among EU citizens aged 15 and over in 27 member states in 2012. The results of the study show that on average European perceptions of robots are positive and permissive. The life domains in which robots have already been used for a long time (e.g. space exploration, manufacturing, military and security business, search and rescue work) turn out to be the most popular areas for the further penetration of robots. The least preferred life domains are those, which address the core functions of social reproduction (e.g. care of children, elderly people and the disabled, education, leisure). With a series of ordinal logistic regression analyses, we outline the socio-demographic factors that are associated with the willingness to have more robots in the various fields of social production. Pensioner’s supportive attitude towards the use of robots in health care and educational activities is highlighted.


Life Domain Industrial Robot Social Robot Social Reproduction Assistive Robot 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bakardjieva M (forthcoming) Rationalizing sociality: an unfinished script for socialbots. Inf Soc 31(3)Google Scholar
  2. Barile N, Sugiyama S (2015) The automation of taste: a theoretical exploration of mobile ICTs and social robots in the context of music consumption. Int J Soc RobotGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron N (forthcoming) Shall we talk? Conversing with humans and robots. Inf Soc 31(3)Google Scholar
  4. Boyer K (2004) The robot in the kitchen: the cultural politics of care-work and the development of in-home assistive technology. Middle States Geogr 37:72–79Google Scholar
  5. Cavallo F et al. (2011) Engineering in medicine and biology society, EMBC. Paper presented at the annual international conference of the IEEE, 30 Aug 2011–3 Sept 2011Google Scholar
  6. Cavallo F et al (2014) Development of a socially believable multi-robot solution from town to home. Cogn Comput. doi: 10.1007/s12559-014-9290-z zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Dautenhahn K et al (2005) What is a robot companion—friend, assistant or butler? Proceedings of the IEEE/Robotics society of Japan international conference on intelligent robots and systems, IROS, vol 05, pp 1488–1493Google Scholar
  8. Enz S et al (2011) The social role of robots in the future— explorative measurement of hopes and fears. Int J Soc Robot 3(3):263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eurobarometer (2012) Public attitudes towards robots. Special eurobarometer 382: European commission. Accessed 3 Nov 2014
  10. Fortunati L (1995) The arcane of reproduction. Housework, prostitution, labor and capital. Autonomedia, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Fortunati L (2014) Afterword: robot conceptualizations between continuity and innovation. Intervalla 1:116–129Google Scholar
  12. Fortunati L (2015) Mobile media, play and social identities. In: Frissen V, Lammes S, de Lange M, de Mul J, Raessens J (eds) Playful identities: the ludification of digital media cultures. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 293–306Google Scholar
  13. Frey CB, Osborne M (2013) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Oxford martin school working papers. Accessed 2 Nov 2014
  14. Gimenez-Nadal JI, Sevilla A (2012) Trends in time allocation: a cross-country analysis. Eur Econ Rev 56(6):1338–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halpern D, Katz J (2014) Close but not stuck: understanding social distance in human-robot interaction through a computer mediation approach. Intervalla. Accessed 3 Nov 2014
  16. Kim Y, Mutlu B (2014) How social distance shapes human–robot interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 72(12):783–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meister M (2014) When is a robot really social? An outline of the robot sociologicus. Sci Technol Innov Stud 10(1):107–134MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Pääkkönen H, Hanifi R (2011) Ajankäytön muutokset 2000-luvulla. Stat Finl, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  19. Rifkin J (1995) The end of work: the decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the post-market era. G.P. Putnam’s Son, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Shirky C (2008) Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organizations. Penguing Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Smarr CA et al (2014) Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int J Soc Robot 6(2):229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Mind Mach 16(2):141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Takayama L et al. (2008) Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Human robot interaction—HRI ’08, ACM Press, New York, USA, p 25Google Scholar
  24. Vámos T (2009) Social, organization and individual impacts of automation. In: Nof SY (ed) Springer handbook of automation. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Zuboff S (1988) In the age of the smart machine: the future of work and power. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sakari Taipale
    • 1
    Email author
  • Federico de Luca
    • 2
  • Mauro Sarrica
    • 3
  • Leopoldina Fortunati
    • 4
  1. 1.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.International Energy AgencyParisFrance
  3. 3.University of RomeRomeItaly
  4. 4.University of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations