Influence of social presence on acceptance of an assistive social robot and screen agent by elderly users

Advanced Robotics

Volumn 23, Issue 14, 2009, Pages 1909-1923

  Heerink, Marcel ^a   Kröse, Ben ^a,b   Evers, Vanessa ^b   Wielinga, Bob ^b  

^a Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Assistive robots; Eldercare companions; Human robot interaction; Social agents; Technology acceptance

Indexed keywords

ASSISTIVE ROBOTS; ELDERCARE COMPANIONS; HUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTION; SOCIAL AGENTS; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; MAN MACHINE SYSTEMS;

ROBOTS;

EID: 71049185062     PISSN: 01691864     EISSN: 15685535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/016918609X12518783330289     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. M. Pollack, Intelligent technology for an aging population: the use of AI to assist elders with cognitive impairment, AI Mag. Summer 26, 9-24 (2005).
2. J. Forlizzi, C. DiSalvo and F. Gemperle, Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes, J. Human Comput. Interact. 19, 25-59 (2004).
3. J. Forlizzi, Robotic products to assist the aging population, Interactions 12 (2), 16-18 (2004).
4. M. S. Giuliani and F. Fornara, Coping strategies and technology in later life, in: Proc. AISB 2005 - Symposium Robot Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges in Robot-Human Interaction, Hatfield, pp. 46-53 (2005).
5. W. Taggart, S. Turkle and C. Kidd, An interactive robot in a nursing home: preliminary remarks, in: Proc. Towards Social Mechanisms of Android Science, Stresa, pp. 56-61 (2005).
6. M. Heerink, B. J. A. Kröse, B. J. Wielinga and V. Evers, Studying the acceptance of a robotic agent by elderly users, Int. J. Assist. Robotics Mechatron. 7, 33-43 (2006).
7. B. de Ruyter, P. Saini, P.Markopoulos and A. J. N. van Breemen, Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home, Interact. Comput. 17, 522-541 (2005).
8. F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi and P. R. Warshaw, Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22, 1111-1132 (1992).
9. H. Van der Heijden, User acceptance of hedonic information systems, MIS Q. 28, 695-704 (2004).
10. M. Heerink, B. J. A. Kröse, B. J.Wielinga and V. Evers, Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people, in: Proc. 3rd ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction, Amsterdam, pp. 113-120 (2008).
11. T. Shibata, K. Wada and K. Tanie, Statistical analysis and comparison of questionnaire results of subjective evaluations of seal robot in Japan and UK, in: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Taipei, pp. 3152-3157 (2003).
12. K. Wada and T. Shibata, Robot therapy in a care house - results of case studies, in: Proc. ROMAN, Hatfield, pp. 581-586 (2006).
13. W. D. Stiehl, J. Lieberman, C. Breazeal, L. Basel, R. Cooper, H. Knight, L. Lalla, A. Maymin and S. Purchase, The huggable: a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch, in: Proc. IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conf., Las Vegas, NV, pp. 1290-1291 (2006). (Pubitemid 44460601)
14. M. Montemerlo, J. Pineau, N. Roy, S. Thrun and V. Verma, Experiences with a mobile robotic guide for the elderly, in: Proc. AAAI Natl Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Edmonton, pp. 587-592 (2002).
15. M. E. Pollack, L. Brown, D. Colbry, C. Orosz, B. Peintner, S. Ramakrishnan, S. Engberg, J. T. Matthews, J. Dunbar-Jacob, C. E. McCarthy, S. Thrun, M. Montemerlo, J. Pineau and N. Roy, Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly, in: Proc. AAAI Workshop on Automation as Eldercare, Edmonton, AB, pp. 1-7 (2002).
16. C. Parlitz, W. Baum, U. Reiser and M. Hagele, Intuitive human-machine interaction and implementation on a household robot companion, Lecture Notes Comp. Sci. 4557, 922-929 (2007).
17. A. Cesta, G. Cortellessa, F. Pecora and R. Rasconi, Supporting interaction in the RoboCare intelligent assistive environment, in: Proc. AAAI Spring Symp. on Interaction Challenges for Intelligent Assistants, Stanford, CA, pp. 18-25 (2007).
18. A. Cesta and F. Pecora, The RoboCare project: intelligent systems for elder care, in: Proc. AAAI Fall Symp. on Caring Machines: AI in Elder Care, Washington, DC, pp. 1-4 (2005).
19. H. E. Lee, Development of a steward robot for intelligent sweet home, Int. J. Human-friendly Welfare Robotic Syst. 6, 57-64 (2005).
20. K. H. Park, H. E. Lee, Y. Kim and Z. Z. Bien, A steward robot for human-friendly human-machine interaction in a smart house environment, IEEE Trans. Automat. Sci. Eng. 5, 21-25 (2008).
21. T. Fong, I. Nourbakhsh and K. Dautenhahn, A survey of socially interactive robots, Robotics Autonomous Syst. 42, 143-166 (2003).
22. D. Feil-Seifer and M. J. Mataric, Defining socially assistive robotics, in: Proc. Int. Conf. on Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, IL, pp. 465-468 (2005).
23. R. Looije, F. Cnossen and M. A. Neerincx, Incorporating guidelines for health assistance into a socially intelligent robot, in: Proc. Int. Symp. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Hatfield, pp. 515-520 (2006).
24. T. Bickmore, L. Caruso and K. Clough-Gorr, Acceptance and usability of a relational agent interface by urban older adults, in: Proc. ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR, pp. 1212-1215 (2005).
25. T. Bickmore and D. Schulman, The comforting presence of relational agents, in: Proc. CHI, Montreal, pp. 550-555 (2006).
26. B. Reeves and C. Nash, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Televisions, and New Media as Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996).
27. C. F. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, J. Forlizzi and S. Kiesler, All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads, in: Proc. Conf. on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, London, pp. 321-326 (2002).
28. K. M. Lee and C. Nass, Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction, in: Proc. SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL, pp. 289-296 (2003).
29. B. G. Witmer and M. J. Singer, Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire, Presence 7, 225-240 (1998).
30. M. Lombard and T. B. Ditton, At the heart of it all: the concept of presence, J. Computer-Mediated- Commun. 3, available online at: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html (1997).
31. F. Biocca, C. Harms and J. K. Burgoon, Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria, Presence 12, 456-480 (2003).
32. F. Davide and R. Walker, Engineering presence: an experimental strategy, in: Being There: Concepts, Effects and Measurements of User Presence in Synthetic Environments, G. Riva, F. Davide and W. IJsselsteijn (Eds), pp. 42-59. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003).
33. F. D. Davis, Technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems theory and results, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA (1986).
34. I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organizat. Behav. Hum. Decision Process. 50, 179-211 (1991).
35. B. H. Sheppard, J. Hartwick and P. R.Warshaw, The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research, J. Consumer Res. 15, 325-343 (1988).
36. S. Taylor and P. A. Todd, Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models, Inform. Syst. Res. 6, 144-176 (1995).
37. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis and F. D. Davis, User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quart. 27, 425-478 (2003).
38. H. Sun and P. Zhang, Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use: an alternative approach, J. Ass. Inform. Syst. 7, 618-645 (2006).
39. M. Y. Yi and Y. Hwang, Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model, Int. J. Hum.-Comp. Stud. 59, 431-449 (2003).
40. T. Chesney, An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems, Hum. Technol. 2, 225-235 (2006).
41. M. Heerink, B. J. A. Kröse, B. J. Wielinga and V. Evers, The influence of a robot's social abilities on acceptance by elderly users, in: Proc. Int. Symp. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Hatfield, pp. 521-526 (2006).
42. J. Decoster and H. M. Claypool, A meta-analysis of priming effects on impression formation supporting a general model of informational biases, Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 2-27 (2004).