Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Einstellungen gegenüber sozialen Robotern

Eine Übersicht zu Forschungsmethoden und Forschungsergebnissen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Soziale Roboter

  • 9845 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Einstellungen sind die Gedanken und Gefühle einer Person zu einem Einstellungsobjekt, z. B. einem sozialen Roboter. Einstellungen gegenüber Robotern haben kognitive, affektive und verhaltensbezogene Komponenten und können mithilfe von Selbstbeurteilungsmaßen, impliziten Maßen oder Beobachtungsmaßen gemessen werden. Ein Konflikt zwischen möglichen positiven und negativen Aspekten von Einstellungen führt bei potenziellen Nutzer*innen zu Ambivalenz gegenüber sozialen Robotern und zu fehlender Akzeptanz von Robotern im Alltag. Hierbei werden die Einstellungen gegenüber Robotern von den Eigenschaften des jeweiligen Roboters selbst sowie von individuellen und gesellschaftlichen Faktoren beeinflusst. Bezüglich der Verbesserung von Einstellungen gegenüber Robotern ist auf Basis der sozialpsychologischen Literatur anzunehmen, dass vor allem direkter Kontakt oder überzeugende Argumente solche Einstellungen langfristig verbessern können. Aktuelle Forschungsprojekte integrieren die vorhandenen Forschungsergebnisse, um Robotertechnologien gesellschaftlich nutzbar zu machen. Insgesamt sind soziale Roboter noch nicht in Privathaushalten akzeptiert und es ist mehr Forschung nötig, um die ambivalenten Einstellungen aufzulösen und Roboter zu eindeutig positiven Alltagsgefährten zu machen.

Die Ära der Cobots hat begonnen.

(Spiegel Online)

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Asimov I (1991) I, robot. Bantam Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck C, Yogeeswaran K, Ser QM, Woodward G, Sparrow R, Wang S, Eyssel F (2018) Robots and racism. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Chicago, S 196–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellon J, Eyssel F, Gransche B, Nähr-Wagener S, Wullenkord R (2021) Theorie und Praxis soziosensitiver und sozioaktiver Systeme. Springer, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendel O (2020) Der Einsatz von Servicerobotern bei Epidemien und Pandemien. In: HMD – Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik: 1–16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1365/s40702-020-00669-w. Zugegriffen am 14.03.2021

  • Bernotat J, Eyssel F (2018) Can(’t) wait to have a robot at home? – Japanese and German users’ attitudes toward service robots in smart homes. In: 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Nanjing, S 15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernotat J, Eyssel F, Sachse J (2021) The (fe)male robot: how robot body shape impacts first impressions and trust towards robots. Int J Soc Robot 13(3):477–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohner G, Wänke M (2002) Attitudes and attitude change. Psychology Press, Hove

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1982) The need for cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 42(1):116–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang W, Šabanović S (2015) Interaction expands function: social shaping of the therapeutic robot PARO in a nursing home. In: 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, S 343–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins NL, Miller LC (1994) Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 116(3):457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dang J, Liu L (2021) Robots are friends as well as foes: ambivalent attitudes toward mindful and mindless AI robots in the United States and China. Comput Hum Behav 115:106612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission and European Parliament, Brussels (2017) Eurobarometer 87.1 (2017). GESIS Data Archive

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyssel F, Reich N (2013) Loneliness makes the heart grow fonder (of robots) – on the effects of loneliness on psychological anthropomorphism. In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Tokyo, S 121–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyssel F, Wullenkord R, Nitsch V (2017) The role of self-disclosure in human-robot interaction. In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Lisbon, S 922–927

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1964) Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke N, Schreier M, Kaiser U (2010) The „I designed it myself “ effect in mass customization. Manag Sci 56(1):125–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JB, Ambady N (2010) MouseTracker: software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behav Res Methods 42(1):226–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2013) What older people expect of robots: a mixed methods approach. In: Herrmann G, Pearson MJ, Lenz A, Bremner P, Spiers A, Leonards U (Hrsg) Social robotics. ICSR 2013, Lecture notes in computer science, Bd 8239. Springer, Cham, S 19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Frennert S, Eftring H, Östlund B (2017) Case report: implications of doing research on socially assistive robots in real homes. Int J Soc Robot 9(3):401–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldacre B (2008) Bad science: quacks, hacks, and big pharma flacks. Emblem, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer M, Schmitt M (2009) Sozialpsychologie kompakt. Weinheim, Beltz

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JL (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 74(6):1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock PA, Kessler TT, Kaplan AD, Brill JC, Szalma JL (2020) Evolving trust in robots: specification through sequential and comparative meta-analyses. Hum Factors 0018720820922080

    Google Scholar 

  • van Harreveld F, Nohlen HU, Schneider IK (2015) The ABC of ambivalence: affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of attitudinal conflict. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 52:285–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horstmann AC, Krämer NC (2019) Great expectations? Relation of previous experiences with social robots in real life or in the media and expectancies based on qualitative and quantitative assessment. Front Psychol 10:939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jøranson N, Pedersen I, Rokstad AMM, Ihlebaek C (2015) Effects on symptoms of agitation and depression in persons with dementia participating in robot-assisted activity: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 16(10):867–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang HS, Makimoto K, Konno R, Koh IS (2019) Review of outcome measures in PARO robot intervention studies for dementia care. Geriatr Nurs 41(3):207–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan KJ (1972) On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: a suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychol Bull 77(5):361–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDorman KF, Vasudevan SK, Ho CC (2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI Soc 23(4):485–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manstead AS, Livingstone AG (2014) Forschungsmethoden in der Sozialpsychologie. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, S 29–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathur MB, Reichling DB, Lunardini F, Geminiani A, Antonietti A, Ruijten PA, Aczel B (2020) Uncanny but not confusing: multisite study of perceptual category confusion in the uncanny valley. Comput Hum Behav 103:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naneva S, Sarda GM, Webb TL, Prescott TJ (2020) A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots. Int J Soc Robot 12(6):1179–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof AJ (1984) Visibility of response as a mediating factor in equity research. J Soc Psychol 122(2):211–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neyer FJ, Felber J, Gebhardt C (2012) Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft (technology commitment). Diagnostica 58:87–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2004) Psychology in human-robot communication: an attempt through investigation of negative attitudes and anxiety toward robots. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2004), Kurashiki, S 35–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Kato K (2006) Measurement of anxiety toward robots. In: ROMAN 2006 – the 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Hatfield, IEEE, S 372–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris CJ, Larsen JT, Crawford LE, Cacioppo JT (2011) Better (or worse) for some than others: individual differences in the positivity offset and negativity bias. J Res Pers 45(1):100–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onnasch L, Roesler E (2019) Anthropomorphizing robots: the effect of framing in human-robot collaboration. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 63, No. 1. Sage, Los Angeles, S 1311–1315

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrak B, Weitz K, Aslan I, André E (2019) Let me show you your new home: studying the effect of proxemic-awareness of robots on users’ first impressions. In: 2019 28th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), New Delhi, S 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 90(5):751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and persuasion. Springer, New York, S 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Priester JR, Petty RE (1996) The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. J Pers Soc Psychol 71(3):431–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich-Stiebert N, Eyssel F, Hohnemann C (2019) Involve the user! Changing attitudes toward robots by user participation in a robot prototyping process. Comput Hum Behav 91:290–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal-von der Pütten AM, Krämer NC, Hoffmann L, Sobieraj S, Eimler SC (2013) An experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot. Int J Soc Robot 5(1):17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval EB, Mubin O, Obaid M (2014) Human robot interaction and fiction: a contradiction. In: International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, Cham, S 54–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider IK, van Harreveld F, Rotteveel M, Topolinski S, van der Pligt J, Schwarz N, Koole SL (2015) The path of ambivalence: tracing the pull of opposing evaluations using mouse trajectories. Front Psychol 6:996

    Google Scholar 

  • Stange S, Kopp S (2020) Effects of a social robot’s self-explanations on how humans understand and evaluate its behavior. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Cambridge, S 619–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Stange S, Kopp S (2021) Effects of referring to robot vs. user needs in self-explanations of undesirable robot behavior. In: Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’21 Companion), Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapels JG, Eyssel F (2021) Let’s not be indifferent about robots: neutral ratings on bipolar measures mask ambivalence in attitudes towards robots. PLoS One 16(1):e0244697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitz K, Hassan T, Schmid U, Garbas JU (2019a) Deep-learned faces of pain and emotions: elucidating the differences of facial expressions with the help of explainable AI methods. tm – Technisches Messen 86(7–8):404–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitz K, Schiller D, Schlagowski R, Huber T, André E (2019b) „Do you trust me?“ Increasing user-trust by integrating virtual agents in explainable AI interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Paris, S 7–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitz K, Schiller D, Schlagowski R, Huber T, André E (2021) „Let me explain!“: Exploring the potential of virtual agents in explainable AI interaction design. J Multimodal User Interfaces 15:87–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Wullenkord R, Eyssel F (2019) Imagine how to behave: the influence of imagined contact on human–robot interaction. Phil Trans R Soc 374:20180038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wullenkord R, Fraune MR, Eyssel F, Šabanović S (2016) Getting in touch: how imagined, actual, and physical contact affect evaluations of robots, In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), New York, S 980–985

    Google Scholar 

  • Złotowski J, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2017) Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. Int J Hum Comput Stud 100:48–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC), Universität Bielefeld, Inspiration 1, Bielefeld, 33619, Deutschland

    Julia G. Stapels & Friederike Eyssel

Authors
  1. Julia G. Stapels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friederike Eyssel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia G. Stapels .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hochschule für Wirtschaft FHNW, Windisch, Schweiz

    Oliver Bendel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Der/die Herausgeber bzw. der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert durch Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stapels, J.G., Eyssel, F. (2021). Einstellungen gegenüber sozialen Robotern. In: Bendel, O. (eds) Soziale Roboter. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31114-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31114-8_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-31113-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-31114-8

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation