Understanding the Preference of the Elderly for Companion Robot Design

  • Suyeon Oh
  • Young Hoon Oh
  • Da Young JuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 962)


Companion robots have been utilized as technical solutions to alleviate the problems of the elderly. Various types of companion robots have been suggested by human–robot interaction researchers. However, the appearance of some companion robots lacks analysis from the formative perspective. Therefore, we developed five robot design concepts based on literature reviews and the formative analysis of commercialized robots. In total, 19 participants of different age groups were interviewed to rate their preference for the developed design concepts. Cross-tabulation analysis and qualitative findings showed that the preference for the design concepts differed with the age group. The elderly preferred rounded and anthropomorphic robot designs. When evaluating the appearance of a robot, they preferred an intimate design enabling talking to the robot. However, the younger adults preferred neat and tidy designs with less detailed design elements. They considered the actual usage of the robot, emphasizing on maintenance and sanitation.


Companion robot Elderly Appearance Design concept 



This research was supported by Research Program to Solve Social Issues of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (NRF-2017M3C8A8091770). This research was supported by the MIST (Ministry of Science and ICT), Korea, under the “ICT Consilience Creative Program” (IITP-2018-2017-0-01015) supervised by the IITP (Institute for Information & Communications Technology Promotion). We would like to thank Jimin Ryu for designing the companion robot images.


  1. 1.
    Czaja, S.J., Sharit, J.: Age differences in attitudes toward computers. J Geron. Ser. B. 53B, 329–340 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schraft, R.D., Schaeffer, C., May, T.: Care-O-bot: the concept of a system for assisting elderly or disabled persons in home environments. In: IECON ’98. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, pp. 2476–2481, IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brunel, F.F., Bloch, P.H., Arnold, T.J.: Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 29, 551–565 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Del Pobil, A.P., Sundar, S.S.: Interaction science perspective on HRI: designing robot morphology. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, p. 5. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 319 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S.N., Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L.: Looking good? appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance. In: AAAI Spring Symposium: Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, D., Rau, P.L.P., Li, Y.: A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2, 175–186 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu, Y.-H., Fassert, C., Rigaud, A.-S.: Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 54, 121–126 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L., Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R.: Preferences and perceptions of robot appearance and embodiment in human-robot interaction Trials. In: Procs New Front. Human-Robot Interact (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2, 361–375 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Walters, M.L., Koay, K.L.: ‘Doing the right thing wrong’-personality and tolerance to uncomfortable robot approaches. In: Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. The 15th IEEE International Symposium on. pp. 183–188. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Preuß, D., Legal, F.: Living with the animals: animal or robotic companions for the elderly in smart homes? J. Med. Ethics. 43, 407 LP-410 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Banks, M.R., Willoughby, L.M., Banks, W.A.: Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 9, 173–177 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedmann, E., Galik, E., Thomas, S.A., Hall, P.S., Chung, S.Y., McCune, S.: Evaluation of a Pet-assisted living intervention for improving functional status in assisted living residents with mild to moderate cognitive impairment: a pilot study. Am. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. Other Dementias®. 30, 276–289 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shibata, T.: Therapeutic seal robot as biofeedback medical device: qualitative and quantitative evaluations of robot therapy in dementia care. Proc. IEEE 100, 2527–2538 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shibata, T., Wada, K., Tanie, K.: Statistical analysis and comparison of questionnaire results of subjective evaluations of seal robot in Japan and UK. In: 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3152–3157. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu, R., Hui, E., Lee, J., Poon, D., Ng, A., Sit, K., Ip, K., Yeung, F., Wong, M., Shibata, T.: Use of a therapeutic, socially assistive pet robot (PARO) in improving mood and stimulating social interaction and communication for people with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res. Protoc. 4, e45 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Libin, A.V., Libin, E.V.: Person-robot Interactions from the robopsychologists’ point of view: The robotic psychology and robotherapy approach. Proc. IEEE 92, 1789–1803 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Minato, T., Shimada, M., Ishiguro, H., Itakura, S.: Development of an android robot for studying human-robot interaction BT - innovations in applied artificial intelligence. Presented at the (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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, 309–331 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Breazeal, C.: Social robots: from research to commercialization. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, p. 1. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oh, Y.H., Kim, J., Ju, D.Y.: Analysis of design elements to enhance acceptance of companion robot in older adults. In: RO-MAN 2018 - The 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Workshop on Social Cues in Robot Interaction, Trust and Acceptance. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lazar, A., Thompson, H.J., Piper, A.M., Demiris, G.: Rethinking the design of robotic pets for older adults. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 1034–1046. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee, S., Choi, J.: Enhancing user experience with conversational agent for movie recommendation: effects of self-disclosure and reciprocity. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 103, 95–105 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technology and Design Research CenterYonsei Institute of Convergence Technology, Yonsei UniversityIncheonSouth Korea
  2. 2.School of Integrated Technology, Yonsei Institute of Convergence TechnologyYonsei UniversityIncheonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations