Uba Backonja1, Amanda K Hall2, Ian Painter3, Laura Kneale4, Amanda Lazar5, Maya Cakmak6, Hilaire J Thompson7, George Demiris8. 1. Nursing & Healthcare Leadership, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA; Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Health Education, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, USA. 6. Computer Science and Engineering Department, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, WA; and PIK (Penn Integrates Knowledge) University Professor, Department of Biobehavioral Health Sciences School of Nursing & Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the social impact of, comfort with, and negative attitudes towards robots among young, middle-aged, and older adults in the United States. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional. Conducted in 2014-2015 in an urban area of the western United States using a purposive sample of adults 18 years of age or older. METHODS: Respondents completed a survey that included the Negative Attitudes Toward Robots Scale (NARS) and two questions taken or modified from the European Commission's Autonomous System 2015 Report. Analyses were conducted to compare perceptions and demographic factors by age groups (young adults:18-44, middle-aged adults: 45-64, and older adults: >65 years old). FINDINGS: Sample included 499 individuals (n = 322 age 18-44 years, n = 50 age 45-64 years, and n = 102 age 65-98 years). There were no significant differences between age groups for 9 of the 11 items regarding social impact of robots and comfort with robots. There were no significant differences by age groups for 9 of the 14 items in the NARS. Among those items with statistically significant differences, the mean scores indicate similar sentiments for each group. CONCLUSIONS: Older, middle-aged, and younger adults had similar attitudes regarding the social impact of and comfort with robots; they also had similar negative attitudes towards robots. Findings dispel current perceptions that older adults are not as receptive to robots as other adults. This has implications for nurses who integrate supportive robots in their practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurses working in clinical and community roles can use these findings when developing and implementing robotic solutions. Understanding attitudes towards robots can support how, where, and with whom robots can be used in nursing practice.
PURPOSE: To explore the social impact of, comfort with, and negative attitudes towards robots among young, middle-aged, and older adults in the United States. DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional. Conducted in 2014-2015 in an urban area of the western United States using a purposive sample of adults 18 years of age or older. METHODS: Respondents completed a survey that included the Negative Attitudes Toward Robots Scale (NARS) and two questions taken or modified from the European Commission's Autonomous System 2015 Report. Analyses were conducted to compare perceptions and demographic factors by age groups (young adults:18-44, middle-aged adults: 45-64, and older adults: >65 years old). FINDINGS: Sample included 499 individuals (n = 322 age 18-44 years, n = 50 age 45-64 years, and n = 102 age 65-98 years). There were no significant differences between age groups for 9 of the 11 items regarding social impact of robots and comfort with robots. There were no significant differences by age groups for 9 of the 14 items in the NARS. Among those items with statistically significant differences, the mean scores indicate similar sentiments for each group. CONCLUSIONS: Older, middle-aged, and younger adults had similar attitudes regarding the social impact of and comfort with robots; they also had similar negative attitudes towards robots. Findings dispel current perceptions that older adults are not as receptive to robots as other adults. This has implications for nurses who integrate supportive robots in their practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurses working in clinical and community roles can use these findings when developing and implementing robotic solutions. Understanding attitudes towards robots can support how, where, and with whom robots can be used in nursing practice.
Authors: Cory-Ann Smarr; Tracy L Mitzner; Jenay M Beer; Akanksha Prakash; Tiffany L Chen; Charles C Kemp; Wendy A Rogers Journal: Int J Soc Robot Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 5.126
Authors: Corinne A Moss-Racusin; John F Dovidio; Victoria L Brescoll; Mark J Graham; Jo Handelsman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alan J Pearce; Brooke Adair; Kimberly Miller; Elizabeth Ozanne; Catherine Said; Nick Santamaria; Meg E Morris Journal: J Aging Res Date: 2012-12-04
Authors: Zhengyue Jing; Jie Li; Yi Wang; Yemin Yuan; Dan Zhao; Wenting Hao; Caiting Yu; Chengchao Zhou Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Theresa Sophie Busse; Sven Kernebeck; Larissa Nef; Patrick Rebacz; Ilona Kickbusch; Jan Peter Ehlers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Joan Torrent-Sellens; Ana Isabel Jiménez-Zarco; Francesc Saigí-Rubió Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Teemu Rantanen; Teppo Leppälahti; Jaakko Porokuokka; Sari Heikkinen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 3.390