Nieoczywiste relacje z technologią. Przegląd badań na temat ludzkich postaw wobec robotów

Main Article Content

Aleksandra Wasielewska
Paweł Łupkowski

Abstrakt

This paper presents an overview of empirical studies concerning human attitudes towards robots. We start with explaining what attitudes towards robots are. It is followed by the overview of the aforementioned studies which is organized according to the factors related to the attitudes. These are human-related factors (sex, age, education, nationality, culture, belief in human nature uniqueness, religiousness), robot-related ones (external look, its purpose) and factors which arise from the human-robot interaction (earlier experiences with robots, interactions, designing robots).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Wasielewska, A., & Łupkowski, P. (2021). Nieoczywiste relacje z technologią. Przegląd badań na temat ludzkich postaw wobec robotów. Człowiek I Społeczeństwo, 51, 165-187. https://doi.org/10.14746/cis.2021.51.9
Dział
ARTYKUŁY
Biogramy autorów

Aleksandra Wasielewska, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Wydział Psychologii i Kognitywistyk

Aleksandra Wasielewska, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Wydział Psychologii i Kognitywistyki, ul. Szamarzewskiego 89AB, 60-568 Poznań, e-mail: aleksandra.wasielewska@amu.edu.pl, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1270-8511.

Paweł Łupkowski, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Wydział Psychologii i Kognitywistyki

Paweł Łupkowski, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Wydział Psychologii i Kognitywistyki,ul. Szamarzewskiego 89AB, 60-568 Poznań, e-mail: pawel.lupkowski@amu.edu.pl, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5335-2988.

Bibliografia

  1. Alves-Oliveira, P., Ribeiro, T., Petisca, S., Di Tullio, E., Melo, F.S., Paiva, A. (2015). An empathic robotic tutor for school classrooms: Considering expectation and satisfaction of children as end-users. W: International Conference on Social Robotics (ss. 21–30). Cham: Springer.
  2. Bartneck, C., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., Kato, K. (2005). Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots. W: Robot Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges in Robot-human Interaction: AISB’05 convention, 12–15 April 2005, Hatfield, UK (ss. 1–4). Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (SSAISB).
  3. Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(4), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6.
  4. Bruckenberger, U., Weiss, A., Mirnig, N., Strasser, E., Stadler, S., Tscheligi, M. (2013). The good, the bad, the weird: Audience evaluation of a „real” robot in relation to science fiction and mass media. W: Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics (ss. 301–310). Bristol: Springer.
  5. Carpinella, C.M., Wyman, A.B., Perez, M.A., Stroessner, S.J. (2017). The robotic social attributes scale (RoSAS): Development and validation. W: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (ss. 254–262). Vienna: ACM
  6. Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Werry, I. (2005). What is a robot companion-friend, assistant or butler? W: 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (ss. 1192–1197). Alberta: IEEE.
  7. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
  8. Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 143–166.
  9. Giger, J.C., Moura, D., Almeida, N., Piçarra, N. (2017). Attitudes towards social robots: The role of belief in human nature uniqueness, religiousness and taste for science fiction. W: S.N. Jesus, P. Pinto (red.), Proceedings of the II International Congress on Interdisciplinarity in Social and Human Sciences (ss. 509–514). Faro: CIEO, Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics.
  10. Giuliani, M.V., Scopelliti, M., Fornara, F. (2005). Elderly people at home: Technological help in everyday activities. W: ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005 (ss. 365–370). Nashville: IEEE.
  11. Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., Powers, A. (2003). Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. W: The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003 (ss. 55–60). Millbrae: IEEE.
  12. Graaf de, M.M., Ben Allouch, S., Dijk van, J.A. (2019). Why would I use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human–Computer Interaction, 34(2), 115–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1312406.
  13. Groom, V., Takayama, L., Ochi, P., Nass, C. (2009). I am my robot: The impact of robot-building and robot form on operators. W: 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (ss. 31–36). Shenyang: IEEE.
  14. Hudson, J., Orviska, M., Hunady, J. (2017). People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the elderly. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0384-5.
  15. Krägeloh, C.U., Bharatharaj, J., Sasthan Kutty, S.K., Nirmala, P.R., Huang, L. (2019). Questionnaires to measure acceptability of social robots: A critical review. Robotics, 8(4), 88.
  16. Łupkowski, P., Jański-Mały, F. (2020). The more you see me the more you like me: Influencing the negative attitudes towards interactions with robots. Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics Intelligent Systems, 14(3), https://doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS/3-2020/27.
  17. Mori, M., MacDorman, K.F., Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811.
  18. Musiał, M. (2019). Enchanting Robots: Intimacy, Magic, and Technology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  19. Naneva, S., Sarda Gou, M., Webb, T.L. et al. (2020). A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12, 1179–1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4.
  20. Ninomiya, T., Fujita, A., Suzuki, D., Umemuro, H. (2015). Development of the multi-dimensional robot attitude scale: Constructs of people’s attitudes towards domestic robots. W: International Conference on Social Robotics (ss. 482–491). Cham: Springer.
  21. Nomura, T. (2014). Influences of experiences of robots into negative attitudes toward robots. W: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ss. 460–464). Edinburgh: IEEE.
  22. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., Kato, K. (2009). Age differences and images of robots: Social survey in Japan. Interaction Studies, 10(3), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.10.3.05nom.
  23. Nomura, T., Sugimoto, K., Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K. (2012). Social acceptance of huma-
  24. noid robots in Japan: A survey for development of the Frankenstein Syndrome Questionnaire. W: 2012 12th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids 2012) (ss. 242–247). Osaka: IEEE.
  25. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Kato, K. (2006a). Measurement of anxiety toward robots. W: ROMAN 2006. The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ss. 372–377). Hatfield: IEEE.
  26. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Kato, K. (2006b). Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.14nom.
  27. Nowak S. (1973). Pojęcie postawy w teoriach i stosowanych badaniach społecznych. W: S. Nowak (red.), Teorie postaw (ss. 17–88). Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
  28. Palomäki, J., Kunnari, A., Drosinou, M., Koverola, M., Lehtonen, N., Halonen, J., Repo, M., Laakasuo, M. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of the uncanny valley effect. Heliyon, 4(11), e00939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00939.
  29. Peca, A., Coeckelbergh, M., Simut, R., Costescu, C., Pintea, S., David, D., Vanderborght, B. (2016). Robot enhanced therapy for children with autism disorders: Measuring ethical acceptability. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 35(2), 54–66.
  30. Phillips, E., Zhao, X., Ullman, D., Malle, B.F. (2018). What is human-like? Decomposing robot human-like appearance using the Anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) Database. HRI ’18.
  31. Piçarra, N.J.G. (2014). Predicting intention to work with social robots. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidade do Algarve. URL=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/216328753.pdf (dostęp: 8.12.2020).
  32. Piçarra, N., Giger, J.C., Pochwatko, G., Gonçalves, G. (2016a). Making sense of social robots: A structural analysis of the layperson’s social representation of robots. European Review of Applied Psychology, 66(6), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.erap.2016.07.001.
  33. Piçarra, N., Giger, J.C., Pochwatko, G., Możaryn, J. (2016b). Designing social robots for interaction at work: Socio-cognitive factors underlying intention to work with social robots. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 10(4), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS_4-2016/28.
  34. Pochwatko, G., Giger, J.Ch., Różańska-Walczuk, M., Świdrak, J., Kukiełka, K., Możaryn, J., Piçarra, N. (2015). Polish version of the negative attitude toward robots scale (NARS-PL). Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 9(3), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS_3-2015/25.
  35. Reich-Stiebert, N., Eyssel, F., Hohnemann, C. (2019). Involve the user! Changing attitudes toward robots by user participation in a robot prototyping process. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.041.
  36. Riek, L.D., Adams, A., Robinson, P. (2011). Exposure to cinematic depictions of robots and attitudes towards them. W: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Workshop on Expectations and Intuitive Human-Robot Interaction, marzec 2011. Lozanna: ACM Press.
  37. Rosenberg, M.J., Hovland, C.I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitude. W: M.J. Rosenberg et al. (red.), Attitude Organization and Change (ss. 233–239). New Haven: Yale University Press.
  38. Różańska-Walczuk, M., Pochwatko, G., Świdrak, J., Możaryn, J., Kukiełka, K. (2016). Wybrane predyktory postawy wobec robotów społecznych. Prace Naukowe Politechniki Warszawskiej. Elektronika, 1(195), 15–24.
  39. Savela, N., Kaakinen, M., Ellonen, N., Oksanen, A. (2021). Sharing a work team with robots: The negative effect of robot co-workers on in-group identification with the work team. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106585.
  40. Shibata, T., Wada, K., Tanie, K. (2004). Subjective evaluation of seal robot in Brunei. W: ROMAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No. 04TH8759) (ss. 135–140). Kurashiki: IEEE.
  41. Stapels, J.G., 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.
  42. Stower, R., Calvo-Barajas, N., Castellano, G., Kappas, A. (2021). A meta-analysis on children’s trust in social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, February, 1–23.
  43. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
  44. Vatan, A., Dogan, S. (2021). What do hotel employees think about service robots? A qualitative study in Turkey. Tourism Management Perspectives, 37, 100775.
  45. Wasielewska, A., Łupkowski, P. (2020). Know Your Three Laws. Evaluation Study of the Cooperative Board Game THREE, niepublikowane.
  46. Wykowska, A. (2020). Social Robots to Test Flexibility of Human Social Cognition. Int J of Soc Robotics, 12, 1203–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00674-5.