Abstract
With growing interest in geriatric applications for socially assistive robots (SARs), further research is required to understand potential barriers of acceptance among older individuals. Much of the existing work has focused on individuals in assistive and long-term care, with fewer examinations of adults who choose to age-in-place. Additionally, limited work has examined older American’s concerns regarding the use of this form of technology. Therefore, the current pilot study examined potential determinants to acceptance of SARs among independent-living older adults in the United States. This pilot study included older community-dwelling individuals from a mid-sized city in Oklahoma that participated in a larger study on SARs. Participants completed a brief survey on potential concerns related to SAR qualities and capabilities as well as measures of demographic information, psychosocial features, and technology perceptions. Participants reported primary concerns related to privacy and security and the potential for hacking. Alternatively, appearance and the ability for robots to detect sound and record conversations were non-concerns. Analyses also explored demographic, psychosocial, and technological features related to participants’ extent of concern regarding SARs. In sum, the current pilot adds to the limited work on older American’s perceptions of socially assistive robots. Findings provide an initial understanding of the barriers to accepting SARs’ among independent-living older adults in the United States. Findings on older individuals’ concerns can be used to improve design elements of SARs and inform implementation efforts to improve the likelihood that older adults use and benefit from companion robots.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because data include some identifiable features. However, the data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
AARP. (n.d.). About Isolation. Retrieved from https://connect2affect.org/about-isolation/.
Alves-Oliveira, P., Petisca, S., Correia, F., Maia, N., & Paiva, A. (2015). Social Robots for Older Adults: Framework of Activities for Aging in Place with Robots. In A. Tapus, E. André, J. C. Martin, F. Ferland, & M. Ammi (Eds.), Social Robotics. ICSR 2015. Lecture notes in computer science, 9388. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_2.
Anderson, M., & Perrin, A. (2017). Tech adoption climbs among older adults. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/05/17/barriers-to-adoption-and-attitudes-towards-technology/
Andrews, J. A., Brown, L. J., Hawley, M. S., & Astell, A. J. (2019). Older adults’ perspectives on using digital technology to maintain good mental health: Interactive group study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21, e11694. https://doi.org/10.2196/11694.
Ausubel, J. (2020). Older people are more likely to live alone in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/10/older-people-are-more-likely-to-live-alone-in-the-u-s-than-elsewhere-in-the-world/
Bedaf, S., Gelderblom, G. J., & Witte, L. (2015). Overview and categorization of robots supporting independent living of elderly people: What activities do they support and how far have they developed. Assistive Technology, 27, 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2014.978916.
Beer, J, M., Smarr, C, A., Chen, T, L., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T, L., Kemp, C, C., & Rogers, W, A. (2012). The domesticated robot: Design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACE/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 335-342). https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157806.
Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G. J., Jonker, P., & de Witte, L. (2010). Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into the effects and effectiveness. Journal of Post-Acute and Long Term Care Medicine, 13, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.jamda.2010.20.002.
Berde, É. (2019). Digital divide and robotics divide. In D. Gu & M. Dupre (Eds.), Encyclopedia of gerontology and population aging. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69892-2_184-1.
Cain, K., Šabanovic, S., & Carter, M. (2012). The effect of monitoring by cameras and robots on the privacy enhancing behaviors of older adults. In Proceedings of the seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, (pp. 343-350). https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157807.
Charness, N. H., Boot, W. R., Evans, J., Best, R., Taha, J., Sharit, J., & Czaja, S. J. (2017). Constraints on telehealth adoption and use by older adults. Innovation in Aging, 1, 1026. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx004.3736.
Cohen-Mansfield, J., & Perach, R. (2015). Interventions for alleviating loneliness among older persons: A critical review. American Journal of Health Promotion, 29, 109–125. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.130418LIT-182.
Cornwell, E. Y., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650905000103.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 37–67). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
de Graaf, M. M., Allouch, S. B., & Klamer, T. (2015). Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030.
Findlay, R. A. (2003). Interventions to reduce social isolation amongst older people: Where is the evidence? Ageing & Society, 23, 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X03001296.
Frennert, S., & Östlund, B. (2014). Seven matters of concern of social robots and older people. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0225-8.
Gatobu, S. K., Arocha, J. F., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2016). Numeracy, health numeracy, and older immigrants’ primary language: An observation-oriented exploration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38, 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1197129.
Goher, K. M., Mansouri, N., & Fadlallah, S. O. (2017). Assessment of personal care and medical robots from older adults’ perspective. Robotics and Biomimetic, 4, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40638-017-0061-7.
Grice, J. W. (2011). Observation oriented modeling: Analysis of cause in the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
Grice, J. W., Medellin, E., Jones, I., Horvath, S., McDaniel, H., O’lansen, C., & Baker, M. (2020). Persons as effect sizes. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3, 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920922982.
Heinz, M., Martin, P., Margrett, J. A., Yearns, M., Franke, W., Yang, H. I., Wong, J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). Perceptions of technology among older adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 39, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20121204-04.
Holt-Lunstad, J. (2017). The potential public health relevance of social isolation and loneliness: Prevalence, epidemiology, and risk factors. Public Policy & Aging Report, 27, 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prx030.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352.
Khosravi, P., Rezvani, A., & Wiewiora, A. (2016). The impact of technology on older adults’ social isolation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 594–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.092.
Lubben, J. (2018). Addressing social isolation as a potential killer. Public Policy & Aging Report, 27, 136–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prx026.
Neves, B. B., & Vetere, F. (2019). Ageing and digital technology: Designing and evaluating emerging technologies for older adults. Spring Publishing.
Nomura, T., Tasaki, T., Kanda, T., Shiomi, M., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2007). Questionnaire-based social research on opinions of Japanese visitors for communication robots at an exhibition. AI and Society, 21, 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-006-0053-6.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (tri): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2, 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001.
Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C. L. (2015). An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730.
Pearce, A. J., Adair, B., Miller, K., Ozanne, E., Said, C., Santamaria, N., & Morris, M. E. (2012). Robotics to enable older adults to remain living at home. Journal of Aging Research, 2012, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/538169.
Petersen, S., Houston, S., Qin, H., Tague, C., & Studley, J. (2017). The utilization of robotic pets in dementia care. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 55, 569–574. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-160703.
Pino, M., Boulay, M., Jouen, F., & Rigaud, A. S. (2015). “Are we ready for robots that care for us?” attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 7(141), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00141.
Prakash, A., & Rogers, W. A. (2015). Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: Effects of human-likeness and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0269-4.
Pu, L., Moyle, W., Jones, C., & Todorovic, M. (2019). The effectiveness of social robots for older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. The Gerontologist, 59, e37–e51. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny046.
Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., Kerse, N., & Broadbent, E. (2013). The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 14, 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.007.
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2.
Shibata, T., & Wada, K. (2011). Robot therapy: A new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly - a mini-review. Gerontology, 57, 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1159/000319015.
Smarr, C. A., Mizner, T. L., Beer, J. M., Praksash, A., Chen, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2014). Domestic robots for older adults: Attitudes, preferences, and potential. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0220-0.
Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2017). Americans’ attitudes toward robot caregivers. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/10/04/americans-attitudes-toward-robot-caregivers/
Spence, P. R., Westerman, D., Edwards, C., & Edwards, A. (2014). Welcoming our robot overlords: Initial expectations about interaction with a robot. Communication Research Reports, 31, 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2014.924337.
Tichenor, P., Donohue, G., & Olien, C. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinions Quarterly, 34, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600405.
Tsatsou, P. (2011). Digital divides revisited: What is new about divides and their research? Media, Culture, & Society, 33, 317–3331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393865.
Vandemeulebroucke, T., de Casterlé, B. D., & Gastmans, C. (2018). How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging and Mental Health, 22, 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1286455.
Wada, K., Shibata, T., Asada, T., & Musha, T. (2007). Robot therapy for prevention of dementia at home: Results of preliminary experiment. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics, 19, 691–697. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2007.p0691.
Wu, Y. H., Fassert, C., & Rigaud, A. S. (2012). Designing robots for the elderly: Appearance issue and beyond. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 54, 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2011.02.003.
Wu, Y. H., Wrobel, J., Cornuet, M., Kerhervé, H., Damnée, S., & Rigaud, A. S. (2014). Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: A mixed-method study of human–robot interaction over a 1-month period in the living lab setting. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 9, 801–811. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S56435.
Yesavage, J. A., Brink, T. L., Rose, T. L., Lum, O., Huang, V., Adey, M., & Leirer, V. O. (1982). Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17, 37–49.
Yu, R., Hui, E., Lee, J., Poon, D., Ng, A., Sit, K., Ip, K., Yeung, F., Wong, M., Shibata, T., & Woo, J. (2015). Use of a therapeutic socially assistive pet robot (PARO) in improving mood, and stimulating social interaction and communication for people with dementia: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trail. JMIR Research Protocols, 4, e45. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.4.189.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge and thank James Grice for his assistance with the analytical procedures and interpretation.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Robotics Initiative (NRI) Program [grant number CISE/IIS/1427345]; Oklahoma State University College of Human Sciences Bryan Close Professorship in Adulthood and Aging.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors played a significant role in measures design and data collection. Erin Harrington was largely responsible for data analysis and composition of the current manuscript. Dr. Weihua Sheng and Dr. Alex Bishop received funding from the NRI Program and from Oklahoma State University.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
All procedures were approved by the Oklahoma State University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participants in the current pilot study signed an IRB approved informed consent prior to participation.
Consent for Publication
All of the authors have given consent for the publication of this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest/ Competing Interests
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harrington, E.E., Bishop, A.J., Do, H.M. et al. Perceptions of socially assistive robots: A pilot study exploring older adults’ concerns. Curr Psychol 42, 2145–2156 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01627-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01627-5