Human–Robot Collaboration Acceptance Model: Development and Comparison for Germany, Japan, China and the USA
Tóm tắt
The use of robots in the national economy—especially in industrialized countries—is growing. At the same time, the interdependency between humans and robots is getting increasingly closer: they are engaging in direct contact with each other as more and more organizations let robots and humans work hand-in-hand. One factor that predicts successful human–robot interdependency is the acceptance of the robot by the human. Generally, only when an innovative assistive working system covers human needs and expectations, it is perceived to be useful and hence accepted. Furthermore, it has been found that cultural context has an impact on human–robot interaction, as people feel more comfortable interacting with a robot in a culturally normative way. Therefore this paper aims at presenting a human–robot collaboration acceptance model (HRCAM) with regard to the collaboration between humans and robots that is based on prior acceptance models, while also considering technology affinity and ethical, legal and social implications. Additionally, similarities and differences in robot acceptance are shown for four selected countries—both in comparison to the overall human–robot collaboration acceptance model and between the countries. The HRCAM additionally shows which variables influence perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and thus behavioral intention to use and use behavior. A further distinction is made between anchor variables, which can be influenced in the long term, and adjustment variables, which can be influenced in the short to medium term. The model therefore offers practitioners in the field of human–robot collaboration recommendations to increase the acceptance of robots.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ray C, Mondada F, Siegwart R (2008) What do people expect from robots? In: 2008 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 3816–3821
Kopacek P (2013) Development trends in robotics. Elektrotech Inftech 130(2):42–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00502-013-0129-1
Brandl C, Mertens A, Schlick CM (2016) Human-robot interaction in assisted personal services: factors influencing distances that humans will accept between themselves and an approaching service robot. Hum Factors Manuf 26(6):713–727. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20675
International Standardization Organization (2012) Robots and robotic devices—safety requirements for industrial robots—Part 1: robots (ISO 10218-1)
International Standardization Organization (2016) Robots and robotic devices—collavorative robots(DIN ISO/TS 15066, DIN SPEC 5306)
IFR (2016) Internatinaler vergleich der roboter-dichte. https://de.statista.com/infografik/4662/roboter-automatisierung-international/. Accessed 19 Sept 2017
IFR (2017) Absatz von industrierobotern nach ausgewählten ländern weltweit im jahr 2015. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/188252/umfrage/einsatz-von-industrierobotern-in-europa-nach-region/. Accessed 19 Sept 2017
IFR (2017) Geschätzter bestand von industrierobotern weltweit in den jahren 2010 bis 2019 (in 1.000 Stück). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/250212/umfrage/geschaetzter-bestand-von-industrierobotern-weltweit/. Accessed 19 Sept 2017
Rogers EM (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, New York
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis FD (1993) User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man Mach Stud 3:475–487
Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 39(2):273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Hall ET (1989) Beyond culture. Anchor, Norwell
Evers V, Maldonado HC, Brodecki TL et al (2008) Relational vs. group self-construal. In: Fong T, Dautenhahn K, Scheutz M et al (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Human robot interaction—HRI ‘08. ACM Press, New York, p 255
Lee HR, Sabanović S (2014) Culturally variable preferences for robot design and use in South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human–robot interaction. pp 17–24
Trovato G, Zecca M, Sessa S et al (2013) Cross-cultural study on human–robot greeting interaction: acceptance and discomfort by Egyptians and Japanese. Paladyn J Behav Robot. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjbr-2013-0006
Wang L, Rau P-LP, Evers V et al (2010) When in Rome: the role of culture and context in adherence to robot recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. pp 359–366
Rau PP, Li Y, Li D (2009) Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.025
Mahadevan J (2013) Performing interplay through intercultural simulations. Int J Cross Cult Manag 13(3):243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595813507155
Bartneck C, Nomura T, Kanda T et al (2005) A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. Hci international
Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T et al (2006) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21(1–2):217–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7
Haring KS, Silvera-Tawil D, Matsumoto Y et al (2014) Perception of an android robot in Japan and Australia: a cross-cultural comparison. In: Beetz M, Johnston B, Williams M-A (eds) Social robotics, vol 8755. Springer, Cham, pp 166–175
Nomura TT, Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K (2015) Differences on social acceptance of humanoid robots between Japan and the UK. In: Procs 4th int symposium on new frontiers in human-robot interaction
Li D, Rau PLP, Li Y (2010) A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. Int J Soc Robot 2(2):175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0056-9
Haring KS, Mougenot C et al (2014) Cultural differences in perception and attitude towards robots. IJAE 13(3):149–157. https://doi.org/10.5057/ijae.13.149
Haring KS, Silvera-Tawil D, Takahashi T et al (2015) Perception of a humanoid robot: a cross-cultural comparison. In: 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 821–826
van den Bergen B (2012) Differences between Germans and Dutch people in perception of social robots and the tasks robots perform. In: 16th Twente student conference on IT, Enschede, Netherlands
Conti D, Cattani A, Di Nuovo S et al (2015) A cross-cultural study of acceptance and use of robotics by future psychology practitioners. In: 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 555–560
Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T et al (2007) Implications on humanoid robots in pedagogical applications from cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea, and the USA. In: RO-MAN 2007—the 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 1052–1057
Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T et al (2007) What people assume about robots: cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea, and the USA. In: Human robot interaction. IntechOpen
Lee HR, Sung J, Sabanovic S et al (2012) Cultural design of domestic robots: a study of user expectations in Korea and the United States. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 803–808
Karrer K, Glaser C, Clemens C et al (2009) Technikaffinität erfassen-der Fragebogen TA-EG. Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme 8:196–201
Nelles J, Kohns S, Spies J et al (2017) Best-practice approach for a solution-oriented technology assessment: ethical, legal, and social issues in the context of human-robot collaboration. In: Schlick CM, Duckwitz S, Flemisch F et al (eds) Advances in ergonomic design of systems, products and processes, vol 52. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–14
Onnasch L, Maier X, Jürgensohn T (2016) Mensch–Roboter-Interaktion-Eine Taxonomie für alle Anwendungsfälle. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, Dortmund
Cohen J (2013) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge