ATTITUDE TOWARDS ROBOTS AND ROBOT ANXIETY AMONG ELDERLY CARE PROGRAM STUDENTS

Abstract

With the rest of the globe, Türkiye's population gets progressively older. This situation brings changes and problems in many areas, especially health and social systems. Using social robots in elderly care is a remarkable potential solution. In Türkiye, robots are expected to be used in elderly care services soon. This study investigates the relationship between negative attitudes toward robots and the robot anxiety of elderly care program students who are expected to work with robots in the future. This study was designed following the quantitative research approach. The research group comprised 174 elderly care program students (81.6% female, mean age 21.26). The research data were collected using personal information form, Negative Attitudes towards Robots Scale, and Robot Anxiety Scale. Descriptive statistics, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, independent t-test, and simple linear regression analysis techniques were used in data analysis. The study results reveal that robot anxiety is a significant predictor of negative attitudes towards robots. However, students' negative attitudes towards robots were unrelated to age, class level, and gender. It is thought that the research results will be a source for field experts and policymakers to evaluate the necessary actions to realize successful human-robot applications in the future.

Keywords

• elderly care
• robots
• attitudes towards robots
• robot anxiety
• human-robot interaction

YAŞLI BAKIMI PROGRAMI ÖĞRENCİLERİNDE ROBOTLARA KARŞI TUTUM VE ROBOT KAYGISI

Öz

Tüm dünyada olduğu gibi Türkiye’de de nüfus giderek yaşlanmaktadır. Bu durum sağlık ve sosyal sistemler başta olmak üzere pek çok alanda değişim ve sorunları beraberinde getirmektedir. Potansiyel bir çözüm olarak ise yaşlı bakımı hizmetlerinde sosyal robotların kullanımı dikkat çekicidir. Türkiye’de de yakın gelecekte yaşlı bakımı hizmetlerinde robot kullanımı beklenmektedir. Bu doğrultuda araştırmanın amacı gelecekte robotlarla birlikte çalışma olasılığı bulunan yaşlı bakımı programı öğrencilerinin robotlara karşı negatif tutumları ile robot kaygıları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Bu çalışma nicel araştırma yaklaşımına uygun olarak tasarlanmıştır. Araştırma grubunu 174 yaşlı bakımı programı öğrencisi (%81.6’sı kadın, yaş ort. 21.26) oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma verileri kişisel bilgi formu, Robotlara Karşı Negatif Tutumlar Ölçeği ve Robot Kaygısı Ölçeği ile elde edilmiştir. Veri analizinde ise tanımlayıcı istatistik, Pearson Momentler Çarpımı Korelasyon Katsayısı, bağımsız t testi ve basit doğrusal regresyon analizi teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, robot kaygısının robotlara karşı negatif tutumun anlamlı bir yordayıcısı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Diğer taraftan öğrencilerin robotlara karşı negatif tutum düzeylerinin yaş, sınıf düzeyi ve cinsiyetle ilişkili olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarının gelecekte başarılı insan robot uygulamalarının gerçekleştirilebilmesi için gerekli tedbirlerin değerlendirilmesinde alan uzmanlarına ve politika yapıcılara kaynaklık edeceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yaşlı bakımı
• robotlar
• robotlara karşı tutumlar
• robot kaygısı
• insan-robot etkileşimi

Kaynakça

1. Akyazı, K. G., ve Baştemur, Ş. (2024). Interactive Robots: Therapy Robots. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 16(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1242958
2. Asgharian, P., Panchea, A. M., and Ferland, F. (2022). A review on the use of mobile service robots in elderly care. Robotics, 11(6), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics11060127
3. Backonja, U., Hall, A. K., Painter, I., Kneale, L., Lazar, A., Cakmak, M., Thompson, H. J., and Demiris, G. (2018). Comfort and attitudes towards robots among young, middle‐aged, and older adults: a cross‐sectional study. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50(6), 623-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12430
4. Bainbridge, W. A., Hart, J., Kim, E. S., and Scassellati, B. (2008, Ağustos, 1-3). The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. RO-MAN 2008-The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication içinde (ss. 701-706). IEEE. Münih, Almanya. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600749
5. Bedaf, S., Gelderblom, G. J., and De Witte, L. (2015). Overview and categorization of robots supporting independent living of elderly people: What activities do they support and how far have they developed. Assistive Technology, 27(2), 88-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2014.978916
6. Broekens, J., Heerink, M., and Rosendal, H. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 94-103. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2009.08.02.002.00
7. Chen, S. C., Jones, C., and Moyle, W. (2020). Health professional and workers attitudes towards the use of social robots for older adults in long-term care. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(5), 1135-1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00613-z
8. Chien, S. E., Chu, L., Lee, H. H., Yang, C. C., Lin, F. H., Yang, P. L., Wang, T. M., and Yeh, S. L. (2019). Age difference in perceived ease of use, curiosity, and implicit negative attitude toward robots. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 8(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311788

9. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LİSREL uygulamaları (4. Baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
10. Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empırıcally testıng new end-user ınformatıon systems: theory and results. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi] Massachusetts Instıtute of Technology. de Graaf, M. M., and Allouch, S. B. (2013, Ağustos, 26-29). The relation between people's attitude and anxiety towards robots in human-robot interaction. 2013 IEEE RO-MAN içinde (ss. 632-637). IEEE. Gyeongju, Güney Kore. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2013.6628419
11. Erebak, S., ve Turgut, T. (2018). Negative attitudes toward robots scale: validity and reliability of Turkish version. Toros Üniversitesi İİSBF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(9), 407-418.
12. Erebak, S., ve Turgut, T. (2019). Adaptation of the robot anxiety scale into Turkish. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(5), 9-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.18506/anemon.464906
13. Erebak, S., ve Turgut, T. (2020). The mediator role of robot anxiety on the relationship between social anxiety and the attitude toward interaction with robots. Ai & Society, 35(4), 1047-1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00933-8
14. Elsy, P. (2020). Elderly care in the society 5.0 and kaigo rishoku in Japanese hyper-ageing society. Jurnal Studi Komunikasi, 4(2), 435-452. https://doi.org/10.25139/jsk.v4i2.2448
15. Etzioni, A., and Etzioni, O. (2017). The ethics of robotic caregivers. Interaction Studies, 18(2), 174-190. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.2.02etz
16. Fasola, J. and Matarić, M. J. (2013). A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 2(2), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.2.2.Fasola
17. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley.
18. Forgas, J. P., (2008). The role of affect in attitudes and attitude change. W. D. Crano and R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change içinde (ss. 131-158). Psychology Press.
19. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N.E., and Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8. Baskı). McGraw-Hill International Edition.
20. Gnambs, T., and Appel, M. (2019). Are robots becoming unpopular? Changes in attitudes towards autonomous robotic systems in Europe. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.045
21. Görer, B., Salah, A. A., and Akın, H. L. (2017). An autonomous robotic exercise tutor for elderly people. Autonomous Robots, 41, 657-678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-016-9598-5
22. Hudson, J. (2019). The Robot Revolution: Understanding the Social and Economic Impact. Edward Elgar Publishing.
23. Hudson, J., Orviska, M., and Hunady, J. (2017). People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the elderly. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9, 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0384-5
24. Kachouie, R., Sedighadeli, S., Khosla, R., and Chu, M. T. (2014). Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(5), 369-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.873278
25. Khosla, R., Nguyen, K., and Chu, M. T. (2017). Human robot engagement and acceptability in residential aged care. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 33(6), 510-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1275435
26. Koh, I. S., and Kang, H. S. (2018). Effects of intervention using PARO on the cognition, emotion, problem behavior, and social interaction of elderly people with dementia. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing, 29(3), 300-309. https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2018.29.3.300
27. Küçüksille, E. (2010). Çoklu doğrusal regresyon modeli. Ş. Kalaycı (Ed.), SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri içinde (ss. 257-269). Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
28. Louie, W. Y. G., McColl, D., and Nejat, G. (2014). Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults. Assistive Technology, 26(3), 140-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2013.869703
29. Łupkowski, P., and Jański Mały, F. (2020). The more you see me the more you like me: influencing the negative attitude towards interactions with robots. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems, 14(3), 10-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.14313/JAMRIS/3%E2%80%902020/27
30. Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. F. (1999, Ocak, 5-8). Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers içinde (ss. 14). IEEE. Maui, HI, ABD. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1999.772658
31. Marangunić, N., and Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14, 81-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10209-014-0348-1
32. Matarić, M. J., and Scassellati, B. (2016). Socially assistive robotics. Springer Handbook of Robotics, 1973-1994.
33. Morsünbül, Ü. (2019). Human-robot interaction: How do personality traits affect attitudes towards robot?. Journal of Human Sciences, 16(2), 499-504. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v16i2.5636
34. Naneva, S., Sarda Gou, M., Webb, T. L., and Prescott, T. J. (2020). A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(6), 1179-1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4
35. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., and Kato, K. (2008). Prediction of human behavior in human--robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(2), 442-451. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.914004
36. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Yamada, S., and Suzuki, T. (2011, Mart, 8-11). Exploring influences of robot anxiety into HRI. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction içinde (ss. 213-214). Lozan, İsviçre. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957737
37. Nomura, T., Shintani, T., Fujii, K., and Hokabe, K. (2007, Mart, 14-16). Experimental investigation of relationships between anxiety, negative attitudes, and allowable distance of robots. Proceedings of the 2nd IASTED international conference on human computer interaction içinde (ss. 13-18). ACTA Press Chamonix, Fransa.
38. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., and Kato, K. (2006a). Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 7(3), 437-454. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.14nom
39. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., and Kato, K. (2006b, Eylül, 6-8). Measurement of anxiety toward robots. ROMAN 2006-The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication içinde (ss. 372-377). IEEE. Hatfield, İngiltere. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314462
40. Obayashi, K., and Masuyama, S. (2018). The effects of introducing communicative robots with infra-red radiation monitoring system on night shift duties of nursing facility care worker. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan (JRSJ), 36(8), 537-542. http://dx.doi.org/10.7210/jrsj.36.537
41. OECD. (2024). Long-term care workforce: caring for the ageing population with dignity. https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/long-term-care-workforce.htm adresinden 10 Ocak 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
42. Olson, M. A., and Kendrick, R. V. (2008). Origins of attitudes. W. D. Crano and R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change içinde (ss. 111-130). Psychology Press.
43. Savela, N., Turja, T., and Oksanen, A. (2018). Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(4), 493-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0452-5
44. Sharkey, A., and Sharkey, N. (2012). Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6
45. Sparrow, R., and Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines, 16, 141-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6
46. Taipale, S., de Luca, F., Sarrica, M., and Fortunati, L. (2015). Robot Shift from Industrial Production to Social Reproduction. J. Vincent, S. Taipale, B. Sapio, G. Lugano, L. Fortunati, (Eds.) Social Robots from a Human Perspective içinde (ss. 11-24). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15672-9_2
47. Takanokura, M., Kurashima, R., Ohhira, T., Kawahara, Y., and Ogiya, M. (2023). Implementation and user acceptance of social service robot for an elderly care program in a daycare facility. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14(11), 14423-14432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02871-6
48. Turja, T., Taipale, S., Kaakinen, M., and Oksanen, A. (2020). Care workers’ readiness for robotization: identifying psychological and socio-demographic determinants. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(1), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00544-9
49. TÜİK. (2023). İstatistiklerle yaşlılar, 2022. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=%C4%B0statistiklerleYa%C5%9Fl%C4%B1lar-2022-49667&dil=1 adresinden 07 Ocak 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
50. TÜİK. (2024). Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları, 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2023-49684 adresinden 18 Şubat 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır. United Nations. (2023). Ageing. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/ageing adresinden 07 Ocak 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
51. World Health Organization. (2022). Ageing and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health adresinden 07 Ocak 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
52. World Health Organization. (2023). Ageing. https://www.who.int/health-topics/ageing#tab=tab_1 adresinden 07 Ocak 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır. VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2015). APA Dictionary of Psychology (2. Baskı). American Psychological Association.
53. Van Assche, M., Petrovic, M., Cambier, D., Calders, P., Van Gelder, P., and Van de Velde, D. (2024). The perspectives of older adults with mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers on the use of socially assistive robots in healthcare: exploring factors that influence attitude in a pre-implementation stage. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(1), 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2075477
54. Van den Berg, H., Manstead, A. S., van der Pligt, J., and Wigboldus, D. H. (2006). The impact of affective and cognitive focus on attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(3), 373-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.009
55. Vercelli, A., Rainero, I., Ciferri, L., Boido, M., and Pirri, F. (2018). Robots in elderly care. DigitCult-Scientific Journal on Digital Cultures, 2(2), 37-50. http://doi.org/10.4399/97888255088954