Astrid Rosenthal-Von Der Pütten
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
This methodological article discusses the influence of individuals’ beliefs about their abilities to use and control robotic technologies on their evaluation of human-robot-interaction (HRI). We conducted three surveys to develop and validate a new measure of Self-Efficacy in HRI. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factorial (factors perceived self-efficacy and loss of control) solution with good reliability (Study 1, n = 201). Confirmatory factor analysis did not confirm the two-factorial structure. Instead, it revealed a better model fit for a one-factorial solution for a German (Study 2, n = 450) and an English version (Study 3, n = 209) of the scale with good indices for convergent and divergent validity. The final questionnaire with 18 items was used in two experimental studies (Study 4, n = 120). We found that interacting with a robot increased self-efficacy and that individual changes in self-efficacy predict more positive evaluations within a student sample, but not a sample of seniors. Interviews with seniors from this study suggested shortening the scale, and revising the instructions and answering scheme. The revised scale was again subject to confirmatory factor analysis (Study 5, n = 198), confirming the one-factorial solution for the German and the English version of the scale. We discuss potential use cases for the scale in HRI research.
- Ritu Agarwal, V. Sambamurthy, and Ralph M. Stair. 2000. Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy—An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research 11, 4 (2000), 418--430. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Craig A. Anderson and Kathryn B. Anderson. 1996. Violent crime rate studies in philosophical context: A destructive testing approach to heat and southern culture of violence effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 4 (1996), 740--756.Google ScholarCross Ref
- pages = 123--456 publisher = ACM isbn = 9781450343367 editor = Mutlu, Bilge booktitle = Proceedings of the 2017 ACMIEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction year = 2017 address = {S.l.} doi = 123-456 anonymized, title = anonymized paper. {n. d.}.Google Scholar
- Paul Arnstein, Margaret Caudill, Carol Lynn Mandle, Anne Norris, and Ralph Beasley. 1999. Self efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between pain intensity, disability and depression in chronic pain patients. Pain 80, 3 (1999), 483--491.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Albert Bandura. 1986. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4, 3 (1986), 359--373.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Albert Bandura. 2006. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents 5, 307--337 (2006).Google Scholar
- Albert Bandura, Nancy E. Adams, and Janice Beyer. 1977. Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, 3 (1977), 125--139.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. S. Bartlett. 1937. Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 160, 901 (1937), 268--282.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulić, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 1 (2009), 71--81.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guido Beier. 1999. Kontrollüberzeugungen im umgang mit technik. Report Psychologie 9 (1999), 684--693.Google Scholar
- Robert A. Bell, Sheryl W. Tremblay, and Nancy L. Buerkel-Rothfuss. 1987. Interpersonal attraction as a communication accomplishment: Development of a measure of affinity--seeking competence. Western Journal of Speech Communication 51, 1 (1987), 1--18.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jürgen Bortz. 1999. Statistik: Für Sozialwissenschaftler (fünfte, vollständig überarbeitete und aktualisierte auflage ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg and s.l.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gregory J. Boyle. 1985. Self-report measures of depression: Some psychometric considerations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 24, 1 (1985), 45--59.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gregory J. Boyle. 1991. Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Personality and Individual Differences 12, 3 (1991), 291--294.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Timothy A. Brown. 2015. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Marlene E. Burkhardt and Daniel J. Brass. 1990. Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 1 (1990), 104.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Carmines and J. McIver. 1981. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In Social Measurement: Current Issues, G. Bohrnstedt and E. Borgatta (Eds.). Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
- Simon Cassidy and Peter Eachus. 2002. Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research 26, 2 (2002), 133--153.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. B. Cattell. 1966. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1, 2 (1966), 245--276.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vehbi Celik and Etem Yesilyurt. 2013. Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers 8 Education 60, 1 (2013), 148--158. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gilad Chen, Stanley M. Gully, and Dov Eden. 2001. Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods 4, 1 (2001), 62--83.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kuanchin Chen, Jengchung V. Chen, and David C. Yen. 2011. Dimensions of self-efficacy in the study of smart phone acceptance. Computer Standards 8 Interfaces 33, 4 (2011), 422--431. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacob Cohen. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Vol. 2. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hilsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
- Sheldon Cohen and Harry M. Hoberman. 1983. Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 13, 2 (1983), 99--125.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sheldon Cohen, Robin Mermelstein, Tom Kamarck, and Harry M. Hoberman. 1985. Measuring the Functional Components of Social Support.Google Scholar
- Deborah Compeau, Christopher A. Higgins, and Sid Huff. 1999. Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly 23, 2 (1999), 145. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Deborah R. Compeau and Christopher A. Higgins. 1995. Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research 6, 2 (1995), 118--143. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Deborah R. Compeau and Christopher A. Higgins. 1995. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly 19, 2 (1995), 189--211. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. D. Cook, S. J. Hepworth, T. D. Wall, and P. B. Warr. 1981. The experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 factors and their use.Google Scholar
- H. Coolican. 2017. Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Taylor 8 Francis.Google Scholar
- Robert Devellis. 2003. Scale Development: Theory and Applications, (2nd Ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Eamonn Ferguson and Tom Cox. 1993. Exploratory factor analysis: A user’s guide. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 1, 2 (1993), 84--94.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andy P. Field. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS : (And Sex and Drugs and Rock ’n’ Roll) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA and London. DOI:http://worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/oclc/262584404 Google ScholarDigital Library
- forsa. 2016. Service-Robotik: Mensch-Technik-Interaktion im Alltag: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Befragung. DOI:https://www.bmbf.de/files/BMBF_forsa_Robotik_FINAL2016.pdf.Google Scholar
- Marilyn E. Gist, Catherine Schwoerer, and Benson Rosen. 1989. Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 6 (1989), 884--891.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert J. Harvey, Robert S. Billings, and Kevin J. Nilan. 1985. Confirmatory factor analysis of the job diagnostic survey: Good news and bad news. Journal of Applied Psychology 70, 3 (1985), 461--468.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John L. Horn. 1965. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30, 2 (1965), 179--185.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meng-Hsiang Hsu and Chao-Min Chiu. 2004. Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decision Support Systems 38, 3 (2004), 369--381. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Li-tze Hu and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, 1 (1999), 1--55.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Graeme D. Hutcheson and Nick Sofroniou. 1999. The Multivariate Social Scientist: Introductory Statistics Using Generalized Linear Models. SAGE Publications, Ltd, London.Google Scholar
- M. Igbaria. 1995. The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega 23, 6 (1995), 587--605.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Monique Janneck, Sylvie Vincent-Höper, and Ina Othersen. 2012. Entwicklung und validierung eines fragebogens zum technikbezogenen selbstkonzept (TSK): Eine gendersensitive Studie. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung 43, 3 (2012), 289--310.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry F. Kaiser. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39, 1 (1974), 31--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry F. Kaiser and Kern W. Dickman. 1959. Analytic determination of common factors. In American Psychologist. Vol. 14. 425--441.Google Scholar
- Paul Kline. 1979. Psychometrics and Psychology. Acad. Press, London.Google Scholar
- Cynthia Lee and Philip Bobko. 1994. Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, 3 (1994), 364--369.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joseph Lee Rodgers and W. Alan Nicewander. 1988. Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician 42, 1 (1988), 59--66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jing Li, Jean-Bernard Martens, and Jarke J. van Wijk. 2008. Judging correlation from scatterplots and parallel coordinate plots. Information Visualization 9, 1 (2008), 13--30. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gitta H. Lubke and Bengt O. Muthén. 2004. Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 11, 4 (2004), 514--534.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. K. MACIEJEWSKI. 2000. Self-efficacy as a mediator between stressful life events and depressive symptoms: Differences based on history of prior depression. The British Journal of Psychiatry 176, 4 (2000), 373--378.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tracy McDonald and Marc Siegall. 1992. The effects of technological self-efficacy and job focus on job performance, attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Psychology 126, 5 (1992), 465.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Takumi Ninomiya, Akihito Fujita, Daisuke Suzuki, and Hiroyuki Umemuro (Eds.). 2015. Development of the Multi-dimensional Robot Attitude Scale: Constructs of People’s Attitudes Towards Domestic Robots. Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
- Tatsuya Nomura, Takayuki Kanda, and Tomohiro Suzuki. 2006. Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human--robot interaction. AI 8 SOCIETY 20, 2 (2006), 138--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Pajares. 1996. Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research 66, 4 (1996), 543--578.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank Pajares and M. David Miller. 1994. Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 86, 2 (1994), 193--203.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Phillips and H. Zhao. 1993. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology : The Official Journal of RESNA 5, 1 (1993), 36--45.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Astrid M. and Nicole C. Krämer. 2015. Individuals’ evaluations of and attitudes towards potentially uncanny robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 7, 5 (2015), 799--824.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Albert Satorra. 2000. Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In Innovations in Multivariate Statistical Analysis, R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, and A. Satorra (Eds.). Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, Vol. 36. Springer, Boston, MA, 233--247. $\delimeter''026E30F$textunderscoreGoogle Scholar
- Karin Schermelleh-Engel, Helfried Moosbrugger, and Hans Müller. 2003. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online 8, 2 (2003), 23--74.Google Scholar
- R. Schwarzer and M. Jerusalem. 1995. Generalized self-efficacy scale. J. Weinman, S. Wright, 8 M. Johnston, Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio Causal and Control Beliefs. Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON (1995), 35--37.Google Scholar
- Christa Speier and Michael Frese. 1997. Generalized self efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East Germany. Human Performance 10, 2 (1997), 171--192.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Sandy Staples, John S. Hulland, and Christopher A. Higgins. 1998. A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3, 4 (1998), 0.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James Paul Stevens. 2009. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (5. ed.). Routledge, New York. DOI:http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10617648Google Scholar
- Gholamreza Torkzadeh, Xenophon Koufteros, and Kurt Pflughoeft. 2003. Confirmatory analysis of computer self-efficacy. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 10, 2 (2003), 263--275.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gholamreza Torkzadeh and Thomas P. van Dyke. 2001. Development and validation of an internet self-efficacy scale. Behaviour 8 Information Technology 20, 4 (2001), 275--280.Google Scholar
- Gholamreza Torkzadeh and Thomas P. van Dyke. 2002. Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior 18, 5 (2002), 479--494.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. F. Velicer, A. C. Peacock, and D. N. Jackson. 1982. A comparison of component and factor patterns: A Monte Carlo approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research 17, 3 (1982), 371--388.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Viswanath Venkatesh and Fred D. Davis. 1996. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences 27, 3 (1996), 451--481.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael Morris, Gordon Davis, and Fred Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Management Information Systems Quarterly 27, 3 (2003). DOI:http://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol27/iss3/5 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nicole C. Krämer, Laura Hoffmann, Alberto Fuchslocher, Sabrina C. Eimler, Jessica M. Szczuka, Matthias Brand, Jennifer Klatt, Anh Lam-chi, and Nicole Sträafling. 2013. Do I need to belong? Development of a scale for measuring the need to belong and its predictive value for media usage. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Vol. 1721.Google Scholar
- Frederick J. Gravetter and Lori-Ann B. Forzano. 2011. Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences (4th ed.). Wadsworth and Cengage Learning (Distributor).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Development and Validation of the Self-Efficacy in Human-Robot-Interaction Scale (SE-HRI)
Recommendations
Development and Validation of Social Anxiety Scale for Social Media Users
Although various scales have been developed with the aim of measuring students' social anxiety in a variety of settings, none of the studies has addressed the measurement of social anxiety in social media platforms. This study describes the process of ...
The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning
Although research has suggested that group composition plays an important role in collaborative learning, the role of motivation in group composition has rarely been taken into account. This study investigates the effects of group composition of self-...
Comments