Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 16:1 (2015) ► pp.68–88

Mental models of robots among senior citizens

An interview study of interaction expectations and design implications

| College at Brockport, USA
| Penn State University, USA
| Penn State University, USA | Sungkyunkwan University, Korea
| Penn State University, USA

An emerging topic in robot design and scholarly research is socially assistive robots (SAR) for senior citizens. Compared to robots in other sectors, SARs can augment their assistive-utilitarian functions by offering social, emotional, and cognitive support to seniors. This study draws upon interviews with 45 senior citizens to understand this group’s expectations for human-robot interactions (HRI) and their anticipated needs for robots. Our grounded theory analysis suggests that senior citizens expect robots to meet three types of needs: physical, informational, and interactional. Furthermore, they seek assurances that they will have complete control over interactions with robots. Findings show that seniors’ mental models about robots are shaped by their recent experiences with advanced communications technologies and mediated representations of robots in popular culture. Findings are discussed in light of practical design considerations and two theoretical perspectives.

Keywords: Robots, human-robot interaction, computers as social actors, mental models of robots, robot design
Article outline
  • 1.Literature review
    • 1.1Mental models and HRI
    • 1.2CASA paradigm
    • 1.3Robot expectations: Roles, tasks and appearance
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Retirees’ mental models of robot roles
    • 3.2Anticipated human-robot interactions
    • 3.3Three needs for robots
    • 3.4Interactional needs
    • 3.5Information needs
    • 3.6Physical needs
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Design implications
    • 4.2Theoretical considerations
    • 4.3Limitations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.1.04wal
References
AARP
n.d.). Boomers turning 65. Retrieved online from [URL]
Beer, J.M., Smarr, C.A., Chen, T.L., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T.L., Kemp, C.C., & Rogers, W.A
(2012) The domesticated robot: Design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In HRI ‘12 Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 335–342). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyer, K
(2004) The robot in the kitchen: The cultural politics of care-work and the development of in-home assistive technology. Middle States Geographer, 371, 72–79.Google Scholar
Breazeal, C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 421, 167–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brewster, S
(2013, September). Hoaloha Robotics’ founder on how robots can serve a growing senior population. Retrieved online from [URL]
Broekens, J., Heerink, M., & Rosendal, H
(2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: A review. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 94–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., & Werry, I
(2005, August). What is a robot companion – friend, assistant or butler? In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2005. (IROS 2005). 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (pp. 1192–1197). IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dey, I
(1999) Grounding grounded theory – Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fasola, J., & Mataric, M
(2013) A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 2(2), 3–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feil-Seifer, D., & Mataric, M.J
(2005) Defining socially assistive robotics. Proceedings of International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics , 465–468. DOI logo
Fogg, B.J., & Nass, C
(1997) Silicon sycophants: The effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(5), 551–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K
(2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 421, 143–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gigante, S
(2010, February). How boomers will impact the health care industry. CNBC. Retrieved online from [URL]Google Scholar
Goodrich, M.A., & Schultz, A.C
(2007) Human-robot interaction: A survey. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heerink, M., Kröse, B.J.A., Wielinga, B.J., & Evers, V
(2008) Enjoyment, intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. Proceedings HRI , Amsterdam, 113–120. DOI logo
Khan, Z
(1998) Attitudes towards intelligent service robots. NADA KTH, Stockholm, 17 .
Kiesler, S., & Goetz, J
(2002) Mental models and cooperation with robotic assistants. Proceedings of CHI , 576–577. DOI logo
Kim, K.J., Park, E., & Sundar, S.S
(2013) Caregiving role in human–robot interaction: A study of the mediating effects of perceived benefit and social presence. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1799–1806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitchenman, A
(2013, April). Will ‘baby boom tsunami’ swamp healthcare, other services? Retrieved online from [URL]
Lee, K.M., Peng, W., Jin, S.A., & Yan, C
(2006) Can robots manifest personality?: An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 754–772. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, H., Syrdal, D., Dautenhahn, K., Gelderblom, G.J., Bedaf, S., & Amirabdollahian, F
(2013) What should a robot do for you?- Evaluating the needs of the elderly in the UK. In ACHI 2013 The Sixth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions , Nice, France (pp. 83–88). IARIA XPS Press.
Mast, M., Burmester, M., Krüger, K., Fatikow, S., Arbeiter, G., Graf, B., & Qiu, R (2012) User-centered design of a dynamic-autonomy remote interaction concept for manipulation-capable robots to assist elderly people in the home. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, M
(1970) The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.Google Scholar
Nass, C., Reeves, B., & Leshner, G
(1996) Technology and roles: A tale of two TVs. Journal of Communication, 46(2), 121–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E.R
(1994, April). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 72–78). ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nie, J., Park, M., Marin, A.L., & Sundar, S.S
(2012) Can you hold my hand? Physical warmth in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of HRI , 201–202. DOI logo
Ray, C., Mondada, F., & Siegwart, R
(2008) What do people expect from robots? In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2008. IROS 2008. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (pp. 3816–3821). IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reeves, B., & Nass, C
(1996) The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryan, E.B., Hummert, M.L., & Boich, L.H
(1995) Communication predicaments of aging: Patronizing behavior toward older adults. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(1–2), 144–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saygin, A.P., Chaminade, T., Ishiguro, H., Driver, J., & Frith, C
(2012) The thing that should not be: Predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(4), 413–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheutz, M., Cantrell, R., & Schermerhorn, P
(2011) Toward humanlike task-based dialogue processing for human robot interaction. AI Magazine, 32(4), 77–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M.V., D’Amico, A.M., & Fornara, F
(2004) If I had a robot at home… Peoples’ representation of domestic robots. In Designing a more inclusive world (pp. 257–266). Springer London. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibata, T., & Tanie, K
(2001) Physical and affective interaction between human and mental commit robot. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2572–2577. DOI logo
Sundar, S.S., Bellur, S., Oh, J., Jia, H., & Kim, H.S
(2014) Theoretical importance of contingency in human-computer interaction: Effects of message interactivity on user engagement. Communication Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sundar, S.S., & Nass, C
(2000) Source orientation in human-computer interaction: Programmer, networker, or independent social actor? Communication Research, 27 (6), 683–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K.L., Walters, M.L., & Otero, N.R
(2010, September). Exploring human mental models of robots through explicitation interviews. In RO-MAN, 2010 IEEE (pp. 638–645). IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tapus, A., Mataric’, M.J., & Scassellati, B
(2007) The grand challenges in socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 14(1), 35–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrey, C., Fussell, S., & Kiesler, S
(2005) Appropriate accommodations: Speech technologies and the needs of older adults. Unpublished ms. HCII, Carnegie Mellon.
Tung, F.W., & Chang, T.Y (2013) Exploring children’s attitudes towards static and moving humanoid robots. In Human-computer interaction: Users and contexts of use (pp. 237–245). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waddell, T., Sundar, S.S., & Jung, E.H
(2014) The young and the vulnerable? Perceived negative effects of robots on youngsters prevent older adults from adopting companion robots. Proceedings of CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ‘14) , 1981–1986. DOI logo
Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., & Bartneck, C
(2013) More human than human: Does the uncanny curve really matter? Proceedings of the HRI2013 Workshop on Design of Humanlikeness in HRI from uncanny valley to minimal design Tokyo , 7–1.
Cited by

Cited by 15 other publications

Banks, Jaime & Kevin Koban
2021. Framing Effects on Judgments of Social Robots’ (Im)Moral Behaviors. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 DOI logo
Banks, Jaime & Kevin Koban
2023. A Kind Apart: The Limited Application of Human Race and Sex Stereotypes to a Humanoid Social Robot. International Journal of Social Robotics 15:11 ► pp. 1949 ff. DOI logo
Bartneck, Christoph, Tony Belpaeme, Friederike Eyssel, Takayuki Kanda, Merel Keijsers & Selma Šabanović
2020. Human-Robot Interaction, DOI logo
Brachman, Michelle, Qian Pan, Hyo Jin Do, Casey Dugan, Arunima Chaudhary, James M. Johnson, Priyanshu Rai, Tathagata Chakraborti, Thomas Gschwind, Jim A Laredo, Christoph Miksovic, Paolo Scotton, Kartik Talamadupula & Gegi Thomas
2023. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Butler, Crystal, Stephanie Michalowicz, Lakshmi Subramanian & Winslow Burleson
2017. Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, ► pp. 773 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Cheng, Michael L. Krieger & S. Shyam Sundar
2021. Smartphones, robots, and social media: aging with communication technologies. In Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Chesser, A.F., K.N. Bramlett, A. Atchley, C.E. Gray & N.L. Tenhundfeld
2022. 2022 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS), ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Erden, Mustafa Suphi
2020. Social Robotics and Engineering Students: Do They Match? Does Culture Matter?. International Journal of Social Robotics 12:5 ► pp. 1149 ff. DOI logo
Golant, Stephen M.
2017. A theoretical model to explain the smart technology adoption behaviors of elder consumers (Elderadopt). Journal of Aging Studies 42 ► pp. 56 ff. DOI logo
Hatch, Paul, Md Anisur Rahman & Joseph E. Michaelis
2023. PATHWiSE: An Authoring Tool to Support Teachers to Create Robot-Supported Social Learning Experiences During Homework. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7:CSCW1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Horstmann, Aike C., Clara Strathmann, Lea Lambrich & Nicole C. Krämer
2023. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Karimova, Gulnara Z.
2022. A Personality-Grounded Framework for Designing Artificial Intelligence-Based Product Appearance. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Soljacic, Fran, Theresa Law, Meia Chita-Tegmark & Matthias Scheutz
2024. Robots in healthcare as envisioned by care professionals. Intelligent Service Robotics DOI logo
Tenhundfeld, Nathan L., Hannah M. Barr, Emily H. O'Hear & Kristin Weger
2022. Is My Siri the Same as Your Siri? An Exploration of Users’ Mental Model of Virtual Personal Assistants, Implications for Trust. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 52:3 ► pp. 512 ff. DOI logo
Zafrani, Oded & Galit Nimrod
2019. Towards a Holistic Approach to Studying Human–Robot Interaction in Later Life. The Gerontologist 59:1 ► pp. e26 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.