Elderly’s acceptance of companion robots from the perspective of user factors

  • Tianyang HuangEmail author
  • Chiwu Huang
Short Paper


Taiwan has entered the aged society in March 2018, meaning that more social and technological resources are needed to solve the problems related to the elderly’s companion service. Companion robots are considered a solution to effectively meet the elderly’s service needs for family escort. However, little is known about the elderly’s acceptance of companion robots. The purpose of this study is to explore the elderly’s acceptance of companion robots from the perspective of user factors. The research was carried out by a mixed method of interviews and questionnaires. Independent sample t test and one-way analysis of variance were used for analysis. The results showed that there were significant differences in the attitude and perceived usefulness of companion robots in terms of education level, living conditions, professional background and technical experience. The research found that the elderly living with parents, with master’s (or doctor’s) education, medical professional background and experience in the use of scientific and technological products expressed more positive attitudes in the responses to the items on the constructs of attitude and perceived usefulness, while the attitude of those with primary school education and humanities professional background, with no experience in scientific and technological products, was relatively negative. Research shows that the acceptance of companion robots by the elderly was affected to some extent by user factors. These findings can provide reference for robot designers, industrial designers and other researchers.


Companion robot The elderly Acceptance User factors perspective Taiwan 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization.: World report on ageing and health. (2015). Accessed 10 Dec 2018
  2. 2.
    National Development Council.: Population estimate of the republic of Taiwan (2018–2065). (2018). Accessed 09 Dec 2018
  3. 3.
    Yan, F., Yuze, C.: Quantity can be improved to build a long-term care system of sustainable development. Commun. Dev. Quart. 153, 5–18 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miskelly, F.G.: Assistive technology in elderly care. Age Ageing 30(6), 455–458 (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu, Q.L., Ng, J.S.L., Tan, O.Y., Huang, Z.Y.: Needs and attitudes of Singaporeans towards home service robots: a multi-generational perspective. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 14(4), 477–486 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graf, B., Hans, M., Schraft, R.D.: Care-O-bot II—development of a next generation robotic home assistant. Auton. Robots 16(2), 193–205 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Esposito, R., Fiorini, L., Limosani, R., Bonaccorsi, M., Manzi, A., Cavallo, F., Dario, P.: Supporting active and healthy aging with advanced robotics integrated in smart environment. In: Artificial Intelligence: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, pp 2656–2686. IGI Global (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vandemeulebroucke, T., de Casterle, B.D., Gastmans, C.: How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Ment. Health 22(2), 149–167 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broekens, J., Heerink, M., Rosendal, H.: Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2), 94–103 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robinson, H., MacDonald, B.A., Kerse, N., Broadbent, E.: Suitability of healthcare robots for a dementia unit and suggested improvements. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 14(1), 34–40 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flandorfer, P.: population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int. J. Popul. Res. 2012, 1–13 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bartlett, B., Estivill-Castro, V., Seymon, S., Tourky, A.: Robots for pre-orientation and interaction of toddlers and preschoolers who are blind. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation, CD-Rom Proceedings, Citeseer, pp. 0–9587Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breazeal, C.L.: Designing Sociable Robots. MIT press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frennert, S., Östlund, B., Eftring, H.: Would granny let an assistive robot into her home? In: International Conference on Social Robotics, pp. 128–137. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu, Y.H., Cristancho-Lacroix, V., Fassert, C., Faucounau, V., de Rotrou, J., Rigaud, A.S.: The attitudes and perceptions of older adults with mild cognitive impairment toward an assistive robot. J. Appl. Gerontol. 35(1), 3–17 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zsiga, K., Edelmayer, G., Rumeau, P., Peter, O., Toth, A., Fazekas, G.: Home care robot for socially supporting the elderly: focus group studies in three European countries to screen user attitudes and requirements. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 36(4), 375–378 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu, Y.-h., Wrobel, J., Cornuet, M., Kerhervé, H., Damnée, S., Rigaud, A.-S.: Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human–robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting. Clin. Interv. Aging 9, 801 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pino, M., Boulay, M., Jouen, F., Rigaud, A.S.: “Are we ready for robots that care for us?” Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Front. Aging Neurosci. 7, 15 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(4), 319–330 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., Tanie, K.: Effects of robot assisted activity to elderly people who stay at a health service facility for the aged. In: Proceedings. 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003), pp. 2847–2852. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shibata, T., Tanie, K.: Influence of a priori knowledge in subjective interpretation and evaluation by short-term interaction with mental commit robot. In: Proceedings 2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2000), pp. 169–174. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wada, K., Shibata, T., Musha, T., Kimura, S.: Effects of robot therapy for demented patients evaluated by EEG. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2005), pp. 1552–1557. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McGlynn, S.A., Kemple, S., Mitzner, T.L., King, C.H.A., Rogers, W.A.: Understanding the potential of PARO for healthy older adults. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 100, 33–47 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zsiga, K., Toth, A., Pilissy, T., Peter, O., Denes, Z., Fazekas, G.: Evaluation of a companion robot based on field tests with single older adults in their homes. Assist. Technol. 30(5), 259–266 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prakash, A., Rogers, W.A.: Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: effects of human-likeness and task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(2), 309–331 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen, T.L., Bhattacharjee, T., Beer, J.M., Ting, L.H., Hackney, M.E., Rogers, W.A., Kemp, C.C.: Older adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise. PLoS ONE 12(10), 29 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cortellessa, G., Scopelliti, M., Tiberio, L., Svedberg, G.K., Loutfi, A., Pecora, F.: A cross-cultural evaluation of domestic assistive robots. In: AAAI Fall Symposium: AI in Eldercare: New Solutions to Old Problems, pp. 24–31 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kowalewski, S., Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: Accounting for user diversity in the acceptance of medical assistive technologies. In: International Conference on Electronic Healthcare, pp 175–183. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Dijk, J.A.: Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 34(4–5), 221–235 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Broadbent, E., Garrett, J., Jepsen, N., Li Ogilvie, V., Ahn, H.S., Robinson, H., Peri, K., Kerse, N., Rouse, P., Pillai, A., MacDonald, B.: Using robots at home to support patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 20(2), 15 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mitzner, T.L., Boron, J.B., Fausset, C.B., Adams, A.E., Charness, N., Czaja, S.J., Dijkstra, K., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A., Sharit, J.: Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26(6), 1710–1721 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smarr, C.-A., Prakash, A., Beer, J.M., Mitzner, T.L., Kemp, C.C., Rogers, W.A.: Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 1, pp. 153–157. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marcel, I.: Patient and staff acceptance of robotic technology in occupational therapy: a pilot study. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 28(2), 33–34 (1991). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D.S., Walters, M.L., Dautenhahn, K.: Living with robots: investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human–robot interaction study. In: The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human interactive Communication, 2007. RO-MAN 2007, pp. 564–569. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Czaja, S.J., Charness, N., Fisk, A.D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S.N., Rogers, W.A., Sharit, J.: Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychol. Aging 21(2), 333–352 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ellis, R.D., Allaire, J.C.: Modeling computer interest in older adults: the role of age, education, computer knowledge, and computer anxiety. Hum. Factors 41(3), 345–355 (1999). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sugiyama, S., Vincent, J.: Social robots and emotion: transcending the boundary between humans and ICTs. Intervalla 1, 1–6 (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2(4), 361–375 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smarr, C.A., Mitzner, T.L., Beer, J.M., Prakash, A., Chen, T.L., Kemp, C.C., Rogers, W.A.: Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(2), 229–247 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dillon, A.: User acceptance of information technology. In: Encyclopedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, London (2001).
  41. 41.
    Chang, R.C.S., Lu, H.P., Yang, P.S.: Stereotypes or golden rules? Exploring likable voice traits of social robots as active aging companions for tech-savvy baby boomers in Taiwan. Comput. Hum. Behav. 84, 194–210 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Heerink, M.: Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, pp. 147–148. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ezer, N., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. In: International Conference on Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 39–48. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arras, K.O., Cerqui, D.: Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000 people survey: a 2000-people survey. Technical Report 605 (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. In: RO-MAN 2009—The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 528–533. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., Kato, K.: Prediction of human behavior in human–robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. 24(2), 442–451 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Young, J.E., Hawkins, R., Sharlin, E., Igarashi, T.: Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1), 95–108 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yang, H.-d., Yoo, Y.: It’s all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decis. Support Syst. 38(1), 19–31 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Santos, J.R.A.: Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J. Ext. 37(2), 1–5 (1999)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Park, E., Kwon, S.J.: The adoption of teaching assistant robots: a technology acceptance model approach. Progr. Electron. Libr. Inf. Syst. 50(4), 354–366 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ezer, N., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: More than a servant: self-reported willingness of younger and older adults to having a robot perform interactive and critical tasks in the home. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol 2, pp. 136–140. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2009)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bevilacqua, R., Di Rosa, M., Felici, E., Stara, V., Barbabella, F., Rossi, L.: Towards an impact assessment framework for ICT-based systems supporting older people: making evaluation comprehensive through appropriate concepts and metrics. In: Longhi, S., Siciliano, P., Germani, M., Monteriù, A. (eds.) Ambient Assisted Living, pp 215–222. Springer, Cham (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lattanzio, F., Abbatecola, A.M., Bevilacqua, R., Chiatti, C., Corsonello, A., Rossi, L., Bustacchini, S., Bernabei, R.: Advanced technology care innovation for older people in Italy: necessity and opportunity to promote health and wellbeing. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 15(7), 457–466 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Beer, J., Prakash, A., Smarr, C., Chen, T., Hawkins, K., Nguyen, H., Rogers, W.: Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: attitudinal changes following brief exposure. Gerontechnology 16(1), 21–36 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Giuliani, M.V., Scopelliti, M., Fornara, F.: Elderly people at home: technological help in everyday activities. In: IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. ROMAN 2005, pp. 365–370. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Turja, T., Van Aerschot, L., Särkikoski, T., Oksanen, A.: Finnish healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards robots: reflections on a population sample. Nurs. Open 5, 300–309 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hall, A.K., Backonja, U., Painter, I., Cakmak, M., Sung, M., Lau, T., Thompson, H.J., Demiris, G.: Acceptance and perceived usefulness of robots to assist with activities of daily living and healthcare tasks. Assist. Technol. 31(3), 133–140 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mitzner, T.L., Chen, T.L., Kemp, C.C., Rogers, W.A.: Identifying the potential for robotics to assist older adults in different living environments. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(2), 213–227 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rantanen, T., Lehto, P., Vuorinen, P., Coco, K.: The adoption of care robots in home care—a survey on the attitudes of Finnish home care personnel. J. Clin. Nurs. 27(9–10), 1846–1859 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dinet, J., Vivian, R.: Perception and attitudes towards anthropomorphic robots in France: validation of an assessment scale. Psychol. Fr. 60(2), 173–189 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tay, B., Jung, Y.B., Park, T.: When stereotypes meet robots: the double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human–robot interaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 38, 75–84 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Paperno, N., Rupp, M.A., Parkhurst, E.L., Maboudou-Tchao, E.M., Smither, J.A., Bricout, J., Behal, A.: Age and gender differences in performance for operating a robotic manipulator. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst. 49(2), 137–149 (2019). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lee, W.H., Lin, C.W., Shih, K.H.: A technology acceptance model for the perception of restaurant service robots for trust, interactivity, and output quality. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 16(4), 361–376 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Beer, J.M., Prakash, A., Smarr, C.-A., Mitzner, T.L., Kemp, C.C., Rogers, W.A.: Commanding your robot older adults’ preferences for methods of robot control. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 1, pp. 1263–1267. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Doctoral Program in Design, College of DesignNational Taipei University of TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Guangdong Ocean UniversityZhanjiangChina
  3. 3.Department of Industrial Design, College of DesignNational Taipei University of TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations