Children’s perceptions of social robots: a study of the robots Pepper, AV1 and Tessa at Norwegian research fairs

AI and Society 36 (1):205-216 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article studies perceptual differences of three social robots by elementary school children of ages 6–13 years at research fairs. The autonomous humanoid robot Pepper, an advanced social robot primarily designed as a personal assistant with movement and mobility, is compared to the teleoperated AV1 robot—designed to help elementary school children who cannot attend school to have a telepresence through the robot—and the flowerpot robot Tessa, used in the eWare system as an avatar for a home sensor system and dedicated to people with dementia living alone. These three robots were shown at the Norwegian national research fair, held in every major Norwegian city annually, where children were able to interact with the robots. Our analysis is based on quantitative survey data of the school children concerning the robots and qualitative discussions with them. By comparing three different types of social robots, we found that presence can be differently understood and conceptualized with different robots, especially relating to their function and “aliveness.” Additionally, we found a strong difference when relating robots to personal relations to one’s own grandparents versus older adults in general. We found children’s perceptions of robots to be relatively positive, curious and exploratory and that they were quite reflective on their own grandparent having a robot.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

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

Children’s acceptance of social robots.Chiara de Jong, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne & Alex Barco - 2019 - Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systemsinteraction Studies 20 (3):393-425.
Why Collaborative Robots Must Be Social (and even Emotional) Actors.Kerstin Fischer - 2019 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 23 (3):270-289.
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.
Why robots should not be treated like animals.Deborah G. Johnson & Mario Verdicchio - 2018 - Ethics and Information Technology 20 (4):291-301.
Interactive biorobotics.Edoardo Datteri - 2020 - Synthese 198 (8):7577-7595.
Mental models of robots among senior citizens: An interview study of interaction expectations and design implications.Justin Walden, Eun Hwa Jung, S. Shyam Sundar & Ariel Celeste Johnson - 2015 - Interaction Studiesinteraction Studies Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 16 (1):68-88.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-05

Downloads
15 (#809,553)

6 months
3 (#447,120)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations