Wed, Jan 29, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 2, Issue 3 (SEPTEMBER ISSUE 2021)
johepal 2021, 2(3): 120-138 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Alemi M, Abdollahi A. (2021). A Cross-cultural Investigation on Attitudes Towards Social Robots: Iranian and Chinese University Students. johepal. 2(3), 120-138. doi:10.52547/johepal.2.3.120
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-132-en.html
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-132-en.html
Abstract: (2738 Views)
Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in the study of robotics in academic contexts; however, little attention has been given to the investigation of the effects of social and cultural backgrounds in people’s receptivity of robots, especially across nations. To this end, the present study is a cross–cultural exploration on the Iranian and Chinese attitude towards social robots. Utilizing the adapted version of the questionnaire Negative Attitude towards Robots Scale (NARS), this study explores the effects of cultural background (Chinese vs. Iranian), gender, and previous robot familiarity on robot acceptance. To reach this goal, 320 participants including 150 Iranians (equal males and females) and 170 Chinese (equal males and females), filled in the adapted NARS questionnaire which consists of 27 questions in three clusters: attitude towards interaction with robots, attitude towards the social influence of robots, and attitude towards emotions in interaction with robots. The data were analyzed by employing a three-way ANOVA to investigate the effects of cultural background (Chinese vs. Iranian), gender, and previous robot familiarity on the robot acceptance. The findings indicated that there was a significant difference between Chinese and Iranian respondents’ robot acceptance due to their cultural background, not to their gender neither to their previous familiarity. Therefore, an interaction between cultural factors and robot acceptance was seen between the two cultures. These findings can be useful for educational technologists, robot designers and operators to be more attentive to cultural differences and manufacture more adaptive robots.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2021/07/1 | Accepted: 2021/09/22 | Published: 2021/09/30
Received: 2021/07/1 | Accepted: 2021/09/22 | Published: 2021/09/30
References
1. Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., & Ghazisaedy, M. (2014). Employing humanoid robots for teaching English language in Iranian junior high-schools. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 11(03), 1450022. [DOI]
2. Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., Ghanbarzadeh, A., Jafari Moghadam, L., & Ghanbarzadeh, A. (2014). Impact of a social humanoid robot as a therapy assistant in children cancer treatment. In M. Beetz, B. Johnston, & M. A. Williams (Eds.), International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR): Social Robotics (pp. 11-22). Switzerland: Springer. [DOI]
3. Alemi, M., Taheri, A., Shariati, A., & Meghdari, A. (2020). Social robotics, education, and religion in the Islamic world: An Iranian perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(5), 2709-2734. [DOI]
4. Bartneck, C., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2005). Cultural differences in attitudes towards robots. Proceedings of the AISB Symposium on Robot Companions: Hard Problems And Open Challenges in Human-Robot Interaction, Hatfield (pp. 1-4). [Article]
5. Bartneck, C., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kennsuke, K. (2005). A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. Proceedings of the HCI International (pp. 1-3), Las Vegas. [Article]
6. Bartneck, C., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., & Nomura, T. (2007). The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI& Society, 21(1-2), 217-230. [DOI]
7. Basiri, S., Taheri, A., Meghdari, A., & Alemi, M. (2021). Design and implementation of a robotic architecture for adaptive teaching: A case study on Iranian sign language. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 102(2), 48. [DOI]
8. Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Understanding robot acceptance. Technical Report HFA-TR-1103. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology School of Psychology - Human Factors and Aging Laboratory. [Article]
9. Choi, J. H., Lee, J. Y., & Han, J. H. (2008). Comparison of cultural acceptability for educational robots between Europe and Korea. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 4(3), 97-102. [DOI]
10. Conti, D., Cattani, A., Di Nuovo, S., & Di Nuovo, A. (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) (pp. 555-560), Kobe, Japan: IEEE. [DOI]
11. Cooper, M., Keating, D., Harwin, W., & Dautenhahn, K. (1999). Robots in the classroom-tools for accessible education. In C. Buhler & H. Knops (Eds.), Assistive Technology on the Threshold of the New Millennium (pp. 448-452). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
12. Dautenhahn, K., Bond, A., Cañamero, L., & Edmonds, B. (2002). Socially intelligent agents: Creating relationships with computers and robots. In K. Dautenhahn, A. Bond, L. Cañamero, & B. Edmonds (Eds.), Socially Intelligent Agents: Creating Relationships with Computers and Robots (pp. 1-20). Boston, MA: Springer. [DOI]
13. Eresha, G., Häring, M., Endrass, B., André, E., & Obaid, M. (2013). Investigating the influence of culture on proxemic behaviors for humanoid robots. In RO-MAN, 2013 IEEE (pp. 430-435), Gyeongju, South Korea: IEEE. [DOI]
14. Gemperle, F., DiSalvo, C., Forlizzi, J., & Yonkers, W. (2003). The hug: A new form for communication. DUX ’03: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (pp. 1-4). ACM. [DOI]
15. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213-236. [DOI]
16. Greczek, J., Kaszubski, E., Atrash, A., & Matarić, M. (2014). Graded cueing feedback in robot-mediated imitation practice for children with autism spectrum disorders. The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 561-566). Edinburgh, UK: IEEE. [DOI]
17. Hameed, I. A., Tan, Z. H., Thomsen, N. B., & Duan, X. (2016). User acceptance of social robots. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI 2016) (pp. 274-279). Venice, Italy: IARIA XPS Press.
18. Han, J., Hyun, E., Kim, M., Cho, H., Kanda, T., & Nomura, T. (2009). The cross-cultural acceptance of tutoring robots with augmented reality services. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and Its Application, 3(2), 95-102.
19. Han, J., Jo, M., Park, S., & Kim, S. (2005). The educational use of home robots for children. ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 378-383). Nashville, TN, USA: IEEE. [DOI]
20. Hosseini, S. R., Taheri, A., Alemi, M., & Meghdari, A. (2021). One-shot learning from demonstration approach toward a reciprocal sign language-based HRI. International Journal of Social Robotics, [DOI]
21. Lee, H. R., & Sabanović, S. (2014). Culturally variable preferences for robot design and use in South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. HRI ’14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 17-24). ACM. [DOI]
22. Li, D., Rau, P. L. P., & Li, Y. (2010). A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(2), 175-186. [DOI]
23. MacDorman, K. F., Vasudevan, S. K., & Ho, C. C. (2009). Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI & Society, 23(4), 485-510. [DOI]
24. Mazzoni, E., & Benvenuti, M. (2015). A robot-partner for preschool children learning English using socio-cognitive conflict. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 474-485. [Article]
25. Miller, D. P., Nourbakhsh, I. R., & Siegwart, R. (2008). Robots for education. In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Robotics (pp. 1283-1301). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
26. Mohammad, Y., & Nishida, T. (2016). Cultural difference in back-imitation’s effect on the perception of robot’s imitative performance. In J.T. K. V. Koh, B. J. Dunstan, D. Silvera-Tawil, & M. Velonaki (Eds.) Cultural Robotics (pp. 17-32). LNAI, vol. 9549. Switzerland: Springer. [DOI]
27. Nomura, T., & Kanda, T. (2003). On proposing the concept of robot anxiety and considering measurement of it. The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003. (pp. 373-378). Millbrae, CA, USA: IEEE. [DOI]
28. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Suzuki, T. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI & Society, 20(2), 138-150. [DOI]
29. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2004). Psychology in human-robot communication: An attempt through investigation of negative attitudes and anxiety toward robots. ROMAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No.04TH8759), (pp. 35-40). Kurashiki, Japan: IEEE. [DOI]
30. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., & Kato, K. (2006). Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 7(3), 437-454. [DOI]
31. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Han, J., Shin, N., Burke, J., & Kato, K. (2008). What people assume about humanoid and animal-type robots: Cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea, and the United States. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 5(1), 25-46. [DOI]
32. Roy, N., Baltus, G., Fox, D., Gemperle, F., Goetz, J., Hirsch, T., Margaritis, D., Montemerlo, M., Pineau, J., Schulte, J., & Thrun, S. (2000, May). Towards personal service robots for the elderly. Workshop on Interactive Robots and Entertainment (WIRE 2000), Vol. 25, Pittsburgh, PA.
33. Sääskilahti, K., Kangaskorte, R., Pieskä, S., Jauhiainen, J., & Luimula, M. (2012). Needs and user acceptance of older adults for mobile service robot. 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robots and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 559-564). Paris, France: IEEE. [DOI]
34. Samani, H., Saadatian, E., Pang, N., Polydorou, D., Fernando, O. N. N., Nakatsu, R., & Koh, J. T. K. V. (2013). Cultural robotics: The culture of robotics and robotics in culture. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 10(12), 400. [DOI]
35. Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Koay, K. L., & Walters, M. L. (2009). The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. Adaptive and Emergent Behaviour and Complex Systems. [Article]
36. Syrdal, D. S., Nomura, T., Hirai, H., & Dautenhahn, K. (2011). Examining the frankenstein syndrome: An open-ended cross-cultural survey. In B. Mutlu, C. Bartneck, J. Ham, V. Evers, & T. Kanda (Eds.), International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR): Social Robotics (pp. 125-134), Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. [DOI]
37. Taheri, A. R., Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., PourEtemad, H. R., & Basiri, N. M. (2014). Social robots as assistants for autism therapy in Iran: Research in progress. 2014 Second RSI/ISM International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (ICRoM), (pp. 760-766). Tehran, Iran: IEEE. [DOI]
38. Taheri, A. R., Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., Pouretemad, H. R., & Holderread, S. L. (2015). Clinical application of humanoid robots in playing imitation games for autistic children in Iran. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 898-906. [DOI]
39. Taheri, A. R., Meghdari, A., Alemi, M., Pouretemad, H. R. (2019). Teaching music to children with autism: A social robotics challenge. Scientia Iranica, 26(1), 40-58. [DOI]
40. Tsui, K. M., Desai, M., Yanco, H. A., Cramer, H., & Kemper, N. (2010). Using the negative attitude toward robots scale with telepresence robots. PerMIS '10: Proceedings of the 10th Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems Workshop. (pp. 243-250). ACM. [DOI]
41. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. [DOI]
42. Wang, L., Rau, P. L. P., Evers, V., Robinson, B. K., & Hinds, P. (2010). When in Rome: The role of culture & context in adherence to robot recommendations. 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 359-366). Osaka, Japan: IEEE. [DOI]
43. Yueh, H. P., & Lin, W. (2013). The interaction between human and the home service robot on a daily life cycle. In P. L. P. Rau (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Design. Cultural Differences in Everyday Life (pp. 175-181). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. [DOI]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
