Towards a new scale for assessing attitudes towards social robots

Interaction Studies 21 (1):24-56 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Background: The surge in the development of social robots gives rise to an increased need for systematic methods of assessing attitudes towards robots. Aim: This study presents the development of a questionnaire for assessing attitudinal stance towards social robots: the ASOR. Methods: The 37-item ASOR questionnaire was developed by a task-force with members from different disciplines. It was founded on theoretical considerations of how social robots could influence five different aspects of relatedness. Results: Three hundred thirty-nine people responded to the survey. Factor analysis of the ASOR yielded a three-factor solution consisting of a total of 25 items: “ascription of mental capacities”, “ascription of socio-practical capacities”, and “ascription of socio-moral status”. This data was further triangulated with data from interviews (n = 10). Conclusion: the ASOR allows for assessment of three distinct facets of ascription of capacities to social robots and offers a new type of assessment of attitudes towards social robots. It appeared that ASOR not only assesses ascription of capacities to social robots but it also gauged overall positive attitudes towards social robots.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots.Tatsuya Nomura, Tomohiro Suzuki, Takayuki Kanda & Kensuke Kato - 2006 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 7 (3):437-454.
Robots, Autonomy, and Responsibility.Raul Hakli & Pekka Mäkelä - 2016 - In Johanna Seibt, Marco Nørskov & Søren Schack Andersen (eds.), What Social Robots Can and Should Do: Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2016. IOS Press. pp. 145-154.
Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics: Social presence in human–robot interaction.Dong-Hee Shin & Hyungseung Choo - 2011 - Interaction Studiesinteraction Studies Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 12 (3):430-460.
Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics.Dong-Hee Shin & Hyungseung Choo - 2011 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 12 (3):430-460.
From Sex Robots to Love Robots: Is Mutual Love with a Robot Possible?Sven Nyholm & Lily Frank - 2017 - In John Danaher & Neil McArthur (eds.), Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 219-244.
Why Collaborative Robots Must Be Social (and even Emotional) Actors.Kerstin Fischer - 2019 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 23 (3):270-289.
Why robots should not be treated like animals.Deborah G. Johnson & Mario Verdicchio - 2018 - Ethics and Information Technology 20 (4):291-301.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-10-16

Downloads
60 (#257,746)

6 months
30 (#101,567)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Marco Nørskov
Aarhus University
Johanna Seibt
Aarhus University
Raul Hakli
University of Helsinki

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Animal Liberation.Bill Puka & Peter Singer - 1977 - Philosophical Review 86 (4):557.
Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-Sensitive Design.Aimee van Wynsberghe - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):407-433.

View all 24 references / Add more references