Abstract
The article presents the results of some research conducted in Italy on the perception of robots. The study was carried out as part of a project arranged by the School of Robotics (Scuola di Robotica) in 2017/2018 and involved around 700 Italian citizens belonging to different social groups. Data collection used mixed methods: surveys, focus groups, interviews, and participatory workshops. The results were compared with surveys conducted in Europe by the Eurobarometer.
Italy is an interesting context for this type of study for the density of robots, for the growth trends of robotics compared to other countries and for the relationships between industry and the labor market. The results of the research show that the attitudes and expectations of Italians towards robots are complex, multidimensional and contradictory: on the one hand, the interviewees positively value the growing presence of robots, on the other, they show fears about the spread of robotics in society. Robots, especially those designed to interact with humans, are part of a large system influenced by social, cultural and environmental factors in which actors move with different expectations and needs. The presence of a significant degree of differentiation between the responses of the different socio-demographic categories confirms the importance of investigating these issues, in order to reduce the distance that persists between researchers and scientists and the impact of technology on society. Furthermore, robotics is often narrated with myths and legends that have no correspondence in reality; since robots will interact more fully with humans, the human-robot interaction process and the bias integrated into the technology must be carefully studied to avoid the risks of confirmatory bias.
References
[1] J.W. Creswell, V.L. Plano Clark, Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011Search in Google Scholar
[2] J.W. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009Search in Google Scholar
[3] European Commission, Directorate General for Communication, Public attitudes towards robots, Special Eurobarometer, 382, Brussels, 2012 http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_382_en.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
[4] European Commission, Directorate General for Communications General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Autonomous systems, Special Eurobarometer, 427, Brussel, 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_427_en.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
[5] European Commission, Directorate General for Communications General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, Attitudes towards the impact of digitisation and automation on daily life, Special Eurobarometer 460, Brussels, 2017 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/sites/jrccties/files/ebs_460_en.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
[6] International Federation of Robotics, World Robotics Outlook 2019 https://ifr.org/downloads/press2018/IFR_World_Robotics_Outlook_2019_-_Chicago.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
[7] Robot: il mercato italiano cresce ancora a doppia cifra https://www.innovationpost.it/2019/05/17/robot-il-mercatoitaliano-cresce-ancora-a-doppia-cifra/Search in Google Scholar
[8] R. Campa, Workers and Automata. A sociological analysis of the Italian case, The Journal of Evolution and Technology, 2014, 24(1), 70–8510.55613/jeet.v24i1.14Search in Google Scholar
[9] International Federation of Robotics, World Robotics Report 2017, Executive Summary World Robotics 2017 Service Robots, VDMA Robotics + Automation, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, https://ifr.org/free-downloads/Search in Google Scholar
[10] M. J. Mataric, B. Scassellati, Socially assistive robotics, In: B. Siciliano, O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Robotics, 2nd Edition, 201610.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_73Search in Google Scholar
[11] R. Kachouie et al., Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A mixed-method systematic literature review, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2014, 30(5), 369–39310.1080/10447318.2013.873278Search in Google Scholar
[12] D. Loffredo, A. Tavakkoli, What are European Union public attitudes towards robots? Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 2016, 14(1), http://www.iiisci.org/journal/CV\protect\T1\textdollar/sci/pdfs/IP009LL16.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
[13] T. Nomura, T. Suzuki, T. Kanda, K. Kato, Measurement of negative attitudes towards robots, Interaction Studies, 2006, 7(3), 437-454, http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1075/is.7.3.14nom10.1075/is.7.3.14nomSearch in Google Scholar
[14] P. Salvini, C. Laschi, C. P. Dario, Design for acceptability: improving robots’ coexistence in human society, International Journal of Social Robotics,2010, 2(4), 451–46010.1007/s12369-010-0079-2Search in Google Scholar
[15] E. Goffman, Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience, Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press, 1974Search in Google Scholar
[16] G. Lakoff G., Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate, Chelsea Green Publishing Co, 2004Search in Google Scholar
[17] R. Campa, The rise of social robots: A review of recent literature, The Journal of Evolution and Technology, 2016, 26(1), 106–11310.55613/jeet.v26i1.55Search in Google Scholar
[18] G. Lakoff, M. Johnsen, Metaphors we live by, London: The University of Chicago press, 200310.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
[19] U. Felt, Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously, MURS, Paris, 2009Search in Google Scholar
[20] British Science Association, https://www.britishscienceassociation.org/news/rise-of-artificial-intelligence-is-a-threat-to-humanity, 2016Search in Google Scholar
[21] YouGov, https://today.yougov.com/topics/technology/articlesreports/2016/07/25/robots-jobs-inequalitySearch in Google Scholar
[22] A. Smith, M. Anderson, PEW Research Center, Automation in Everyday Life, October, 2017Search in Google Scholar
[23] J. M. Beer et al., The domesticated robot: Design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place, In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’12), 2012, 335–342, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2157689.215780610.1145/2157689.2157806Search in Google Scholar
[24] M. F. Damholdt et al., Attitudinal change in elderly citizens toward social robots: The role of personality traits and beliefs about robot functionality, Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, 6, 170110.3389/fpsyg.2015.01701Search in Google Scholar
[25] G. Herrmann, M. J. Pearson, A. Lenz et al. (Eds.), Social Robotics: 5th International Conference, ICSR 2013, Bristol, UK, October 27-29, 2013, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8239, Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelbergn DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-02675-610.1007/978-3-319-02675-6Search in Google Scholar
[26] J. Forlizzi, C. DiSalvo, F. Gemperle, Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes, Human–Computer Interaction, 2004, 19(1), 25–59, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_310.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_3Search in Google Scholar
[27] R. Bemelmans, G. J. Gelderblom, P. P. Jonker, L. De Witte, Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into effects and effectiveness, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2010, 13(2), 114–120.e1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.00210.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[28] J. E. Young, R. Hawkins, E. Sharlin, T. Igarashi, Toward acceptable domestic robots: Applying insights from social psychology, Journal of Social Robotics, 2009, 1(1), 95–108, https://www.jst.go.jp/erato/igarashi/publications/001/SORO-1.pdf10.1007/s12369-008-0006-ySearch in Google Scholar
[29] E. Broadbent, R. Stafford, B. MacDonald, Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions, Journal of Social Robotics, 2009, 1(4), 319–330, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-610.1007/s12369-009-0030-6Search in Google Scholar
[30] S. Lemaignan, M. Warnier, E. Akin Sisbot, A. Clodic, R. Alami, Artificial cognition for social human–robot interaction: An implementation, Artificial Intelligence, 2017, 247, 45–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2016.07.00210.1016/j.artint.2016.07.002Search in Google Scholar
[31] P. Rossi, The Birth of Modern Science, Blackwell Pub, 2001Search in Google Scholar
[32] http://www.storiaolivetti.it/percorso.asp?idPercorso=649Search in Google Scholar
[33] R. M. Cyert, The Impact of Technological Change on Employment and Economic Growth, David C. Mowery, 1988, 277Search in Google Scholar
[34] International Federation of Robotics, World Robotics Report 2016, Statistics, Market Analysis, Forecast and Case Studies, https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/world-roboticsreport-2016Search in Google Scholar
[35] https://www.istat.it/it/files/2017/03/Statistica-report-Indicatori-demografici_2016.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
[36] MIUR, Piano Nazionale Scuola Digitale, http://www.istruzione.it/scuola_digitale/index.shtmlSearch in Google Scholar
[37] Scuola di Robotica, Progetto Ogeima Story: linguaggi umani, macchine, rappresentazioni, 2017-2018, https://www.scuoladirobotica.it/it/homesdr/1005/Progetto_Ogeima__le_vostre_opinioni_sulla_collaborazione_tra_umani_e_robot.htmlSearch in Google Scholar
[38] D. Silver et al., Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search, Nature, 2016, 529, 484–489, https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/alphago/AlphaGoNaturePaper.pdf10.1038/nature16961Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[39] C. Bartneck, T. Nomura, T. Kanda, T Suzuki, K. Kennsuke, Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots, In: Proceedings of the AISB Symposium on Robot Companions: Hard Problems and Open Challenges in Human-Robot Interaction, Hatfield, UK, 2005, 1–4, https://www.bartneck.de/publications/2005/cultureNars/bartneckAISB2005.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
[40] N. Fairclough, Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis, Discourse & Society, 1992, 3(2), 193–217, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F095792659200300200410.1177/0957926592003002004Search in Google Scholar
[41] United Nations, General Assembly, Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030, Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 10 July 2017, New YorkSearch in Google Scholar
[42] European Commission, The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), 2018, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desiSearch in Google Scholar
[43] M. Arntz, T. Gregory, U. Zierahn, The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 189, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-en10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-enSearch in Google Scholar
[44] McKinsey Global Institute, Jobs lost, Jobs gained: workforce transitions in a time of automation, 2017, https://www.mckinsey.com/~{}/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Future%20of%20Organizations/What%20the%20future%20of%20work%20will%20mean%20for%20jobs%20skills%20and%20wages/MGI-Jobs-Lost-Jobs-Gained-Report-December-6-2017.ashxSearch in Google Scholar
[45] D. Acemoglu, P. Restrepo, Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets, NBER Working Paper No. 23285, 2017, DOI: 10.3386/w23285, http://www.sipotra.it/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/Robots-and-Jobs-Evidence-from-US-Labor-Markets.pdf10.3386/w23285,http://www.sipotra.it/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/Robots-------.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Stefania Operto, published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
