nach oben

Erschienen in:

2022 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Social Perception of Robots Scale (SPRS): Developing and Testing a Scale for Successful Interaction Between Humans and Robots

verfasst von : Sarah Mandl, Maximilian Bretschneider, Frank Asbrock, Bertolt Meyer, Anja Strobel

Erschienen in: Collaborative Networks in Digitalization and Society 5.0

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Robots are increasingly populating social settings. Social robots should elicit positive associations to be accepted and integrated into daily lives. Even though social perception is multi-dimensional, available scales do not adequately picture this complexity in the perception of robots. To develop a new scale, we aggregated data on social perception of robots, initially operationalized as competence, sociability, morality, and anthropomorphism from four prior studies. An exploratory factor analysis on a random sample revealed three factors: “anthropomorphism”, “morality/sociability”, and “activity/cooperation”. To validate these results, we performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the remaining sample and tested for validity and reliability. Reliability was appropriate. We found significant correlations between age, gender, educational level, and factors of the scale. However, missing values interfered with confirmatory and validating analyses. Despite these issues, the scale contributes to future research on social perception of robots.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel How Does the Implementation of AI Agents Affect Human Agents’ Job Profiles? Insights from Two Industrial Cases

Nächstes Kapitel Care Pathway as the Basis for Collaborative Business Model Innovation in Healthcare

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

Die Items sollten randomisiert vorgegeben werden.

Demir, K.A., Döven, G., Sezen, B.: Industry 5.0 and human-robot co-working. Procedia Comput. Sci. 158, 688–695 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.104CrossRef

Brynjolfsson, E., McAfee, A.: The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company Inc, New York, NY, USA (2014)

Savela, N., Turja, T., Oksanen, A.: Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 10(4), 493–502 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0452-5CrossRef

Feil-Seifer, D., Mataric, M.J.: Socially assistive robotics. In: 2005 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, ICORR 2005, pp. 465–468. IEEE, Chicago, IL, USA (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2005.1501143

Onnasch, L., Roesler, E.: A taxonomy to structure and analyze human–robot interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 13(4), 833–849 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00666-5CrossRef

Bishop, L., van Maris, A., Dogramadzi, S., Zook, N.: Social robots: the influence of human and robot characteristics on acceptance. Paladyn J. Behav. Robot. 10, 346–358 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2019-0028CrossRef

Zlotowski, J., Bartneck, C.: The inversion effect in HRI: are robots perceived more like humans or objects? In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 365–372. IEEE, Tokyo, Japan (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2013.6483611

Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J.C., Glick, P., Xu, J.: A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878CrossRef

Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., Glick, P.: Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 61–149 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0CrossRef

10.

Kervyn, N., Fiske, S., Yzerbyt, V.: Forecasting the primary dimension of social perception: symbolic and realistic threats together predict warmth in the stereotype content model. Soc. Psychol. 46, 36–45 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000219CrossRef

11.

Abele, A.E., Ellemers, N., Fiske, S.T., Koch, A., Yzerbyt, V.: Navigating the social world: toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychol. Rev. 128, 290–314 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262CrossRef

12.

Fiske, S.T.: Stereotype content: warmth and competence endure. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27, 67–73 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825CrossRef

13.

Ernst, C.-P.H., Herm-Stapelberg, N., Mainz, J.G.-U.: Gender stereotyping’s influence on the perceived competence of Siri and Co. In: Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), AMCIS 2020, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA (2020). https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2020/cognitive_in_is/cognitive_in_is/4

14.

Schaefer, K.E., Sanders, T.L., Yordon, R.E., Billings, D.R., Hancock, P.A.: Classification of robot form: factors predicting perceived trustworthiness. Proc. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 56, 1548–1552 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561308CrossRef

15.

de Visser, E.J., et al.: Almost human: anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 22, 331–349 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000092CrossRef

16.

Mandl, S., et al.: Embodied digital technologies: first insights in the social and legal perception of robots and users of prostheses. Front. Robot. AI. 9, 787970 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.787970CrossRef

17.

Sauppé, A., Mutlu, B.: The social impact of a robot co-worker in industrial settings. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2015, pp. 3613–3622. ACM Press, Seoul, Republic of Korea (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702181

18.

Carpinella, C.M., Wyman, A.B., Perez, M.A., Stroessner, S.J.: The robotic social attributes scale (RoSAS): development and validation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 254–262. ACM, Vienna Austria (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020208

19.

Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 71–81 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3CrossRef

20.

Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T.: On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114, 864–886 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864CrossRef

21.

Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 319–330 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6CrossRef

22.

Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M.V., Fornara, F.: Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 4, 146–155 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0118-1CrossRef

23.

Arras, K.O., Cerqui, D.: Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000-people survey. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland (2005)

24.

Schermerhorn, P., Scheutz, M., Crowell, C.R.: Robot social presence and gender: do females view robots differently than males? In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, HRI 2008. ACM Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349857

25.

Kuo, I.H., et al.: Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. In: The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2009, pp. 214–219. IEEE, Toyama, Japan (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326292

26.

Franke, T., Attig, C., Wessel, D.: A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 35, 456–467 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150CrossRef

27.

de Graaf, M.M.A., Allouch, S.B.: Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 61(12), 1476–1486 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007CrossRef

28.

Heerink, M.: Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 147–148 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957704

29.

Cacioppo, J., Petty, R.E.: The need for cognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 42, 116–131 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116CrossRef

30.

Palan, S., Schitter, C.: Prolific.ac—a subject pool for online experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Finan. 17, 22–27 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004CrossRef

31.

SoftBank Robotics: Pepper. https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper. Accessed 11 Nov 2021

32.

Arlamovsky, M.: ROBOLOVE. NGF - Nikolaus Geyrhalter Filmproduktion (2019)

33.

Chita-Tegmark, M., Law, T., Rabb, N., Scheutz, M.: Can you trust your trust measure? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2021, Boulder, Colorado, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3434073.3444677

34.

Aquino, K., Reed, A.: The self-importance of moral identity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 1423–1440 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1423CrossRef

35.

Meyer, B., Asbrock, F.: Disabled or Cyborg? How bionics affect stereotypes toward people with physical disabilities. Front. Psychol. 9, 2251 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02251CrossRef

36.

Bless, H., Wänke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R.F., Schwarz, N.: Need for cognition: a scale measuring engagement and happiness in cognitive tasks. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie. 25, 147–154 (1994)

37.

R Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2021)

38.

Watkins, M.W.: Exploratory factor analysis: a guide to best practice. J. Black Psychol. 44, 219–246 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807CrossRef

39.

Horn, J.L.: A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30, 179–185 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447CrossRefMATH

40.

Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297–334 (1951)CrossRef

41.

Buckell, J., et al.: Hypothetical Bias (2020). https://catalogofbias.org/biases/hypothetical-bias/

42.

Müller, B.C.N., Gao, X., Nijssen, S.R.R., Damen, T.G.E.: I, robot: how human appearance and mind attribution relate to the perceived danger of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 13(4), 691–701 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00663-8CrossRef

43.

Turja, T., Oksanen, A.: Robot acceptance at work: a multilevel analysis based on 27 EU countries. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 11(4), 679–689 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00526-xCrossRef

Titel: The Social Perception of Robots Scale (SPRS): Developing and Testing a Scale for Successful Interaction Between Humans and Robots
verfasst von: Sarah Mandl
Maximilian Bretschneider
Frank Asbrock
Bertolt Meyer
Anja Strobel
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Collaborative Networks in Digitalization and Society 5.0
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14843-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-14844-6

Copyright-Jahr: 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14844-6_26

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner