Factors Affecting the Acceptability of Social Robots by ... · Factors Affecting the Acceptability of Social Robots by Older Adults and People with Dementia : A Literature Review.

Factors Affecting the Acceptability of Social

Robots by Older Adults and People with

Dementia : A Literature Review.

Sally Whelan PhD Candidate, MA, RNT, RGN

School of Nursing and Midwifery, NUIG

• Background to Study - social robots to support care given to older adults (OA) and people with dementia (PWD). • Technology Acceptability – concepts and models. • Literature Review Study – methods used, results, conclusions, recommendations. • Questions/Discussion.

Session Overview

What is a Social Robot? Definition: A robot that is useful and possesses, ‘social intelligence and skills which enable them to interact with people in a socially acceptable manner’. (Dautenhahn 2007)

Social Robots

This definition includes companion-type robots and service-type robots which support people in undertaking daily living functions

Primary purpose to enhance mental health, and the psychological well-being of its users. Through increasing the engagement and social connectedness

Zoomorphic Robots - Paro

Shibata et al., 2012 and McGlynn, Kemple et al, 2014, Klein and Cook 2012 and Robinson, MacDonald et al. 2013 and Shibata 2012

Zoomorphic Robots - Karotz

(de Graaf, Allouch et al. 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teZJ1ivTLpk

Mario’s - Goals

• To be user driven • To provide assistance • To be a companion • To aid connectedness • To monitor user health and behaviour • To improve quality of life • To be acceptable to the elderly

Mario’s – Functions in Development

Individualised Applications • Reminiscence • Entertainment – Music; Games; Films • News • Skype video calls • Everyday things – scheduling reminders

Social Robots with a Human-like or Mechanical Appearance

Brian 2.1

(McColl, Wing-Yue et al. 2013 and Wing-Yue,

Louise et al. 2014)

Matilda (Khosla, Nguyen et al. 2014)

Acceptability of Social Robots

Acceptability is defined as the ‘robot being willingly incorporated into the older person’s life’ (Broadbent et al 2009)

It implies long term usage.

Important for design and future usage

It depends on multiple variables (Spiekman et al 2011; Frennert et al 2013).

(Heerink et al 2006, 2008,2011,2013)

The Almere Technology Acceptance Model

Relationship between Almere model constructs

(Heerink 2011)

Literature Review

Aims • To determine how this issue has been

examined to date • To identify the importance of particular

factors • To ascertain what is likely to improve

acceptability • To make recommendations for future

research.

Methods

• Key words used to search Cochrane library,

PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web

of Science Core Collection, PsychINFO, and

Compendex (EI Village 2).

• Inclusion Criteria: published in English,

2005-May 2016, empirical study - relevant

to the review aims, which involved PWD,

OA, OA with Cognitive Impairment.

Search Results

• The titles of 198 articles were read • 141 were discounted - not in English, weren’t

relevant, duplicates. • Abstracts from 57 papers were then examined • 11were excluded as they were not empirical

studies or participants not PWD or OA. • Remaining 46 studies identified for inclusion

Results – Attitudes and Anxieties towards technology

• Mental models • Perceived mind experience and mind

agency (Stafford et al 2010, 2013)

• Gender, education, age and computer experience (Heerink 2011)

Results – Intention to Use

• Less Reliable predictor – Changes with experience (Gross and Schroeter el 2012; Heerink 2010)

• More in vivo longitudinal studies needed

• Usage is influenced by what a robot means to individual (Pfadenhauer and Dukat 2015)

Results – Perceived Usefulness

• Useful and relevant to unmet needs (de Graaf

2015)

• Identifying unmet needs complex • Involvement during robot

development – early and regularly

Results – Perceived Ease of Use

• Practical Usability – individual and environmental considerations

• Studies focusing on PEOU and OA and PWD learning to use are few e.g.(Granata

and Pino 2013)

Results – Perceived Enjoyment

• Important for acceptability (Heerink et

al 2011, Young et al 2009)

• Correlates with ITU and actual usage (Heerink et al 2010)

• PE reduced over six months (de Graaf

2015)

Results – Social Presence

• Embodied robot vs ICT technology (Tapus and Tapus 2009)

• Robot size linked to SP and Anxiety (Torta

et al 2013; Robinson, Macdonald et al 2013)

• Relevant to purpose and context • Feeling comfortable

Results – Perceived Sociability

• Believing robot has social ability to

function as assistive device Correlates with PS (Heerink et al 2010)

• Linked to appearance, behavior and communication styles

Results – Robot Appearance

• Little consensus (Scopelliti et al 2005; Bagum,

et al 2013; Pino et al 2015)

• Uncanny valley concept

• Degrees of realism not key • Benefits of undetermined design

(Chang et al 2013)

• Respond to package - robot expressions and communication behavior

Results – Robot Appearance

Results – Robot behavior and communication style

• Compatible with social context and perceptions status and role

• Human-like communication – Stimulations for PWD (Cohen-Mansfield et al

2010)

• ‘Robotiquette’ – recent technical advances

Results – Trust and Perceived Adaptivity

• Important (Frennert 2013, Scopelliti et al 2005)

• Underlies need for Perceived Control • Balance between autonomy and

adaptability (de Graaf 2015)

Results – Social Influences and facilitating conditions

• Few studies focus on these • SI was one of strongest predictor of ITU

(Alaiad 2014; Wu et al 2014)

Conclusion – Acceptability linked to…

• Psychological variables of individuals • Their social and physical environment • Meeting the needs of individuals

Important factors – PEOU, PE, Fulfilling function, Opinions of others.

• Human-like communication • Appropriate to appearance and

function. • Responding to emotional needs

Conclusion – Caution interpreting findings

• Many small studies, short term robot usage and some not in own context or with actual robot usage.

• Infancy of research field • Longitudinal studies in the context of

deployment needed.

Any Questions?

Funding:

The research leading to these results has received

funding from the European Union Horizons 2020–

the Framework Programme for Research and

Innovation (2014-2020) under grant agreement

643808 Project MARIO ‘Managing active and

healthy aging with use of caring service robots”.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they

have no conflict of interest.

Sally Whelan MA RNT RGN

PhD Candidate

School of Nursing and Midwifery

NUI Galway

[email protected]