Refine
Document Type
Conference Type
- Konferenzartikel (2)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Soziale Roboter (3) (remove)
Institute
Open Access
- Open Access (2)
- Closed (1)
This work documents the rising acceptance of social robots for healthcare as well as their growing economic potential from 2017 to 2021. The comparison is based on two studies in the active assisted living (AAL) community. We first provide a brief overview of social robotics and a discussion of the economic potential of social health robots. We found that, despite the huge potential for robotic support in healthcare and domestic routines, social robots still lack the functionality to access that potential. At the same time, the study exemplifies a rise in acceptance: all health-related activities are more accepted in 2021 when in 2017, most of them with high statistical significance. When investigating the economic perspective, we found that persons are aware of the influence of cultural, spiritual, or religious beliefs. Most experts (57%), having a European background, expect the state or the government to be the key driver for establishing social robots in health and significantly prefer leasing or renting a social health robot to buying one. Nevertheless, we speculate that it might be a global financial elite which is first to adopt social robots.
This article presents a study of cultural differences affecting the acceptance and design preferences of social robots. Based on a survey with 794 participants from Germany and the three Arab countries of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, we discuss how culture influences the preferences for certain attributes. We look at social roles, abilities and appearance, emotional awareness and interactivity of social robots, as well as the attitude toward automation. Preferences were found to differ not only across cultures, but also within countries with similar cultural backgrounds. Our findings also show a nuanced picture of the impact of previously identified culturally variable factors, such as attitudes toward traditions and innovations. While the participants’ perspectives toward traditions and innovations varied, these factors did not fully account for the cultural variations in their perceptions of social robots. In conclusion, we believe that more real-life practices emerging from the situated use of robots should be investigated. Besides focusing on the impact of broader cultural values such as those associated with religion and traditions, future studies should examine how users interact, or avoid interaction, with robots within specific contexts of use.
Social robots are robots interacting with humans not only in collaborative settings, but also in personal settings like domestic services and healthcare. Some social robots simulate feelings (companions) while others just help lifting (assistants). However, they often incite both fascination and fear: what abilities should social robots have and what should remain exclusive to humans? We provide a historical background on the development of robots and related machines (1), discuss examples of social robots (2) and present an expert study on their desired future abilities and applications (3) conducted within the Forum of the European Active and Assisted Living Programme (AAL). The findings indicate that most technologies required for the social robots' emotion sensing are considered ready. For care robots, the experts approve health-related tasks like drawing blood while they prefer humans to do nursing tasks like washing. On a larger societal scale, the acceptance of social robots increases highly significantly with familiarity, making health robots and even military drones more acceptable than sex robots or child companion robots for childless couples. Accordingly, the acceptance of social robots seems to decrease with the level of face-to-face emotions involved.