Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
DOI 10.1007/s12369-013-0225-8
Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and Older
People
Susanne Frennert · Britt Östlund
Accepted: 18 December 2013 / Published online: 29 January 2014
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract This article maps the range of currently held sci-
entific positions on matters of concern involving social robots
and older people. 345 publications from peer-reviewed jour-
nals and conferences were narrowed down to 31 key publi-
cations that were studied in detail and categorised into seven
matters of concern: (1) role of robots in older people’s lives,
(2) factors affecting older people’s acceptance of robots, (3)
lack of mutual inspiration in the development of robots for
older people, (4) robot aesthetics, (5) ethical implications of
using robots in caring for older people, (6) robotic research
methodology, and (7) technical determinism versus social
construction of social robots. The findings indicate that older
people are implicated but not present in the development
of robots and that their matters of concern are not identi-
fied in the design process. Instead, they are ascribed general
needs of social robots due to societal changes such as age-
ing demographics and demands from the healthcare industry.
The conceptualisation of older people seems to be plagued
with stereotypical views such as that they are lonely, frail
and in need of robotic assistance. Our conclusions are that
the perceptions of older people need to be re-examined and
perhaps redefined in order to fairly represent who they are,
and that more research on older people as social robotic users
is needed.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0225-8) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
S. Frennert (B)
Department of Design Sciences, Rehabilitation Engineering,
Lund University, Lund, Sweden
e-mail: susanne.frennert@certec.lth.se
B. Östlund
Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Keywords Social robots · Older people · Stereotypes ·
Actor Network Theory · Science and Technology Studies
1 Introduction
The arrival and rapid pace of robot development in the last
twenty years towards robotic caregivers and companions has
led to an escalation of new opportunities for monitoring and
supporting human activities in the home and in public places.
The focus of robotic research has moved from autonomous
industrial robots that work in well-defined, structured envi-
ronments doing dirty, dull and dangerous jobs to social robots
with an increasing ability to co-operate with humans. Due to
developments in medicine and technology, people are liv-
ing longer than before and the older population is gradu-
ally increasing. As a consequence, the likely future of social
robots is that they will share and become an integral part of
the everyday lives of older people. Still, little is known about
how multifunctional social robots will change older users’
practices and how older people will change social robots.
1.1 Matters of Concern
Interest in social robots has increased in recent years. This
is not the first literature review in the field. There are sev-
eral others [1–5], as well as books that provide an overview
of the research, theory and practice of social robotics and
human–robot interaction (HRI) [6–10]. This review, how-
ever, discusses the construction of social robotics in regard
to older people from a multidirectional view, inspired by
Bijker and his co-workers [11] as well as Latour [12]. It
reflects on how social robots and older people are portrayed
and described in the field of social robotics from the point
of view of Science and Technology Studies (STS), where
123
300
the social construction of technology is the key inspira-
tion. In the traditional, deterministic “black box technol-
ogy” perspective, the configuration of the older user is not
questioned; social robots are seen as neutral and the tech-
nology is taken for granted. However, social robots will
most likely have different meanings and consequences for
older people in social, economic and cultural contexts. This
is why it is important to understand the interplay between
technology and social change [13–15]. To be more specific,
from a technological deterministic point of view, technology
change is often seen as a beneficial and forward-thinking
solution; however, when explored from an STS point of
view, this image of technological change becomes more
complex.
STS has taken on the task of challenging technologi-
cal determinism in which technology is seen as a norma-
tive choice in society [16]. STS argues that technology is a
social construction [11]. Coming from the branch of sociol-
ogy that studies social existence as constituted in the interac-
tions between actors, institutions and objects, the notion of
technology is that it is made and used by humans and thus
reflects human values and ideas [17]. Latour and Woolgar
illustrate from the laboratory with engineers how technology
and configurations of users evolve simultaneously in a mutual
interaction [18]. From an STS point of view, the adoption and
use of social robots depends on how well older people and
such innovations co-evolve. Consequently, the adoption of
technology is seen as a dual process where the social robots
as well as the users can change [14]. For this reason, STS
emphasises the sociotechnical aspects and the dual process
of adaption and use of social robots, which comprises a net-
work of people, organisations, artefacts, culture and mean-
ings [13,15,19,20]. As a result, the meaning of social robots
will be created through a complex network of users, scien-
tists, engineers, designers, manufactures, mass media, etc.
[21]. In STS, the user plays an active part as a consumer who
can affect the use and further development of social robots
[14,22,23]. This is in contrast to technological determinism
where the user and his or her relationship to a specific social
robot is perceived as a one-way process through technical
interactions [6].
The focus in an STS analysis is both on how technology
impacts society and how society impacts technological devel-
opment [13]. Actor Network Theory (ANT) is one construc-
tivist methodological approach that follows and describes
the relationship between human and non-human actants [12].
In Latour’s Actor Network Theory, the distinction between
“matters of fact” and “matters of concern” is central. In
our reading of Latour, the notion of matters of concern is
that scientific facts are negotiated and gathered. The actors,
including scientists, have multiple identities to choose from
and the choice is made based on different associations such
as group formations, other non-human and human agen-
123
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
cies, their actions and the matters of concern at hand. The
importance rests in understanding how people, ideas and
things become connected, are assembled and reassembled. In
ANT, actors consist of both human and non-human entities,
the latter including artefacts and social robots. Non-human
entities influence human actors and are seen as mediators that
translate, transform, distort and modify the meaning of the
context in which they operate [12,20]. In this article, we map
the range of currently held scientific positions on matters of
concern involving social robots and older people. Putting the
matters of concern front and centre is important for several
reasons. Firstly, it provides insight into the nuanced view and
development of social robots for older people. The “con-
cerns” show how thinking alters, transforms, reconfigures
and redefines older people in regard to social robots. Sec-
ondly, without knowledge of these matters of concerns, a
holistic understanding of social robots in relation to old peo-
ple is limited. As the social constructivism stance argues, we
need to reflect critically and appreciatively on technology
and our relationship to it [24]. In this review, we explain how
social robots and older people are currently portrayed; we
challenge attitudes that are taken for granted; we reveal over-
looked circumstances; and we present the alternative possi-
bilities we have discovered.
1.2 Definitions of Social Robots
Several researchers in the field of social robots have come up
with definitions of what a social robot is, but a unified defin-
ition is lacking [25,26]. One definition, offered by Breazeal,
is that social robots are “designed to interact with people
in a socio-emotional way during interpersonal interaction”
[27]. Breazeal has identified four classes of social robots:
socially evocative, social interface, socially receptive, and
sociable. Fong et al., inspired by Dauthenhahn, have added
another three classes: socially situated, socially embedded,
and socially intelligent [28].
Currently, definitions of social robots do not acknowledge
that they are culturally embedded and that variants of cultural
traditions will come into play in the HRI relationship [8,29].
The definitions and classes of robots (listed above) describe
how the robot should interact with humans in order to be
perceived as social. Thus, the definitions have a determin-
istic view of robots, in which the user has the passive role
and sociality is seen as a characteristic of the robot. From
an STS perspective, definitions are not neutral by nature but
come with inherent values [24]. According to social con-
structivism, sociality is dynamic and in constant transition
[12]. More specifically, what we do and how we react to
other human and non-human actors, such as social robots,
depends on the social, economic and cultural contexts. This
is why it is important to understand how older people per-
ceive and interact with social assistive robots in different
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
situations, particularly in terms of how their everyday lives
may be formed by the use of social robots. As such, social
robots are not viewed as neutral or as tools of human purpose
but as meditating artefacts between humans-and-humans and
humans-and-non-humans [8,29]. From this point of view, the
characteristics of the HRI will depend on the context in which
the robot operates.
2 Methodology
This review article seeks to map the currently held scientific
positions on matters of concern of social robots and older
people. To explicate the matters of concern, a computerised
database search was conducted using IEEE, ACM, PubMed,
Compendex, and Google Scholar. The search involved mul-
tiple keyword searches using the terms “social robotics” and
“STS” or “science and technology”, “co-construction” and
“elderly”, “old adults” and “constructivism” or “mutual shap-
ing” in several different combinations. The search initially
yielded 345 publications. All the abstracts were read and the
rest of the publications checked to determine their relevance.
We excluded 197 studies that targeted only technical mat-
ters and procedures The remaining publications were only
included in the analysis if they met the following criteria
for inclusion in the review: (1) the words “robot” and “older
people” (“elderly”, “old adults”, etc.) or “social construc-
tivism”, “society” (“STS” or “science and technology”) or
co-constructions appeared in their titles or abstracts, (2) they
were published in peer reviewed journals or conferences, and
(3) they were published in English. This narrowed the selec-
tion down to 31 key publications. We evaluated these publi-
cations in regard to their STS application and if and how older
people were involved in the studies (see Online Appendix).
Publications considered to be outside the STS field were also
selected if they met the inclusion criteria, since we believe
their inclusion helped identify concepts, theories and ways of
knowing in the field of social robotics. They were also credi-
ble sources for illustrating how roboticists think and how the
way of knowing is negotiated and changed when producing
social robots for older people.
The abstracts and full texts of the key publications were
read and re-read. We applied qualitative content analysis to
identify matters of concern [30]. Significant phrases or sen-
tences were identified and then extracted and entered into a
text file. Matters were identified as topics in the phrases or
sentences, which occurred and reoccurred. Each topic was
then coded. An ongoing comparison of the codes was car-
ried out to identify similarities and differences. Similar codes
were clustered together. After careful analysis of each clus-
ter, seven matters of concern were identified by the frequency
and repetition of the matter (see Online Appendix). The mat-
ters of concern in regards to social robots and older people
then become evident. By the use of a snowballing technique
301
additional references were selected. These were publications,
including books, that were cited in the significant phrases and
sentences extracted from the key publications.
3 Results
Our review yielded 31 publications related to social robotics,
older people and Science and Technology Studies (see Online
Appendix). They were published between 2002 and 2012. As
a result of the content analysis of the key references, seven
prominent matters of concern were identified:
1. Role of robots in older people’s lives
2. Factors affecting older people’s acceptance of robots
3. Lack of mutual inspiration in the development of robots
for older people
4. Robot aesthetics
5. Ethical implications of using robots in caring for older
people
6. Robotic research methodology
7. Technical determinism versus social construction of
social robots
Most of the publications debated more than one matter of
concern. Each matter of concern is presented below along
with a discussion of the implications of the findings.
Role of robots in older people’s lives1
A huge body of research papers in the field of social robot-
ics in society addresses the demographic changes of an
older population and the shortage of healthcare professionals
[4,5,34–39] (see Online Appendix). Robots are being devel-
oped to assist and monitor children, older people and disabled
people. A wide variety of robots can help with feeding, mon-
itoring, washing hair, vacuum cleaning, lifting, medication
reminders, and companionship. From an STS point of view,
technological change is intertwined with the economic, social
and technical relations that are already in place [11]. Breazeal
has identified social trends that can motivate the use of social
robots in healthcare [34]:
1. Global ageing
2. Shortage of healthcare professionals and growing dem-
ands of patients
3. Chronic diseases
4. Increased rate of cognitive disorders in children
It has been suggested that one of the advantages of using
social robots is that they do not have any “social baggage”
and they do not judge [34]. Studies indicate that in some
1 NB. Dautenhahn [31] uses the word “caretaker” while Pulman [32]
and Walters et al. [33] use the word “caregiver” for the same role.
123
302
situations it may be less stigmatising for the older user to
receive robotic care or help instead of human [34]. Further-
more, Sparrow and Sparrow argue that robotic research is
driven by societal changes, such a demographic ones, and
the healthcare sector’s inability to provide qualitative care
for older people [40]. It has been demonstrated that the fre-
quent reports in the media concerning the abuse of older
people in the current healthcare system may also affect soci-
ety’s views on social robots taking care of older people
[40].
Dautenhahn suggests that the research on HRI in relation
to older people can roughly be divided into two research par-
adigms: (1) the human as a caretaker of the robot or, (2) the
robot as a caretaker of the human [31]. Dautenhahn formu-
lates the two research paradigms as:
(1) This paradigm considers humans as caretakers of robots:
the role of the human is to identify and respond to
the robot’s emotional and social “needs”. The human
needs to keep the robot “happy” which implies showing
behaviours towards the robot characteristic of behaviour
towards infants or baby animals [31, p. 698].
Versus
(2) This paradigm considers robots as caretakers or assistants
of humans: the role of the robot is to identify and respond
to the human’s needs, primarily in the sense of assisting
in certain tasks. The robot needs to ensure the human is
satisfied and happy (with its behaviour), which implies
showing behaviours towards the human that are com-
fortable and socially acceptable considering a particular
user [31, p. 698].
In the first paradigm, the human is configured as a caretaker
or helper. In fact, research has suggested that making the
human feel needed and important creates a sense of power
and control [41]. This phenomenon was first described in
1965 by Riessman. He called it “the helper theory”, and it
supports the idea that people who help others gain a sense
of well-being compared to people who are only in need of
help [41]. In this paradigm the robot becomes something
that needs to be governed. Examples of robots that belong
to this paradigm are: Sony Aibo a robot dog, Furby the owl-
like robot, and Paro the seal-like robot. Paro is a therapeutic
robot developed by Takanori Shibata. It is modelled as a harp
seal, covered in fur and reacts to touch and sound [42]. Paro’s
therapeutic role has been widely investigated and compared
to that of pets: to give companionship and to cuddle [43].
Previous research has revealed that pets can have a healing
and prevention effect on mental illness, especially to former
pet owners [44]. Pets such as dogs and cats respond to our
actions, our voice, and movements and give us a feeling of
being in control as well as being adored since pets often
show affection. Wada et al. evaluated the experience of Paro
123
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
as a therapeutic robot for older people and autistic children.
Their research suggests that “the seal robot could be use-
ful” for these people since Paro calms them down and less
supervision is needed from the nursing staff [43,45–47]. The
criticism of the use of Paro in healthcare facilities is that it
deceives older people and children into believing that it is a
pet with which they can have a mutual relationship [40]. Oost
and Reed argue that the values of social robots as companions
are identified as the result of the relationship or network in
which they exist [36]. They present how ANT can be incor-
porated in the design process by examining the context of
use in relation to social robots as companions [36]. In Actor
Network Theory, non-human objects, such as social robots,
are also seen as objects that are part of a social network that
contributes to meaning for the actor (the older user) through
their interaction (human–robot).
In the second paradigm, the robot is configured as a care-
taker with the human in need of help. The older person
becomes something that needs to be governed and the robot
assists the person in her everyday life [31]. Examples of
robots that fit into this paradigm are Fraunhofer’s Care-O-
Bot and Pearl, a nurse robot [48]. If robots are considered
as caretakers or assistants to humans they need to be able
to recognise us as individuals, understand our intentions and
remember our habits and preferences [32]. Evidence indi-
cates that human behaviour is situated and context dependent
in different in-situ situations [29]. Suchman goes on to argue
that predicting or generalising a person’s behaviour from one
situation to another is impossible since the behaviour is situ-
ated and context dependent [29]. There are suggestions that
we would expect a “robotic caregiver” to react to our feelings
and moods, which are often expressed in facial and body lan-
guage, and maintain a “robotic etiquette” [33]. If the robot,
for example, addresses us by the wrong name or reminds
of medications or appointments that are not meant for us,
we would quickly lose trust in it. Robotic etiquette involves
behaviour that is predictable, reliable and not intimidating or
frightening [33].
3.1 Factors Affecting Older People’s Acceptance of Robots
So far, we have presented the factors on a societal level that
may drive the development of social robots with regard to
older people as well as how robticists configure the older user
into a caretaker or a caregiver of social robots, but what might
affect older people’s acceptance? To answer this question,
we present and discuss a combination of original research
articles and reviews on factors that affect the acceptance of
social robots. Salvini et al. [49] claim that the acceptabil-
ity of a robot is dependent on social acceptance by others,
legal levels and the socio-ethical level (robots are seen as
replacements for humans). A key notion of their findings is
the social construction of social robots: attitudes of others
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
toward the robot affect the individual’s attitude and accep-
tance of it. Similarly, Forlizzi et al. highlight that the design
of assistive robots has to fit into the ecology of older peo-
ple, support their values, and adapt to all the members of the
system who will interact with the robots [50]. The authors
claim that robots must be conceived as part of a larger sys-
tem of exciting products and environments. There is suffi-
cient evidence that social and cultural implications as well
as multiple and universal functionality must be considered
[50]. In fact, research has suggested that it is important to
assess the expectations and needs from a range of stakehold-
ers (older people, family, medical staff) [1]. This is further
confirmed in another review by Bemelmans et al., who also
claim the need for all the stakeholders to understand the ben-
efits of the robot in order for it to be accepted [5]. Kidd et
al. state that a supporting socio-material setting is impor-
tant for the acceptance of a robot in a healthcare context
[51].
Heerink et al. present a model on how to assess older
people’s acceptance of assistive social technology [52]. It is
based on the technology acceptance model (TAM) and has
been tested in several studies with older people. They pro-
pose that the use of social agents is determined by social
influences, facilitating conditions, perceived usefulness, per-
ceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment, attitudes and trust.
Likewise, Young et al. confirm in their review that the domes-
tic socialisation of robots is dependent upon the users’ sub-
jective perceptions of what robots are, how they work and
what they can and cannot do [3]. The authors suggest that
factors affecting acceptance are safety, accessibility, usabil-
ity, practical benefits, fun, social pressure, status gains and
the social intelligence of the robot [3]. Additionally, Salvini
et al. argue that acceptability—the users’ willingness to inter-
act with robots—should not be mixed up with usability since
robots can fail to gain the acceptance of older people even if
they are easy to use. This is due to negative attitudes of others
toward the robot [49]. Flandofer is interested in the impor-
tance of sociodemographic factors for older users’ accep-
tance of assistive robots [2]. She reviewed the literature and
found evidence that the previous robot experience of older
users has a significant impact on their acceptance. Thus,
as a result, she presents evidence that supports the impor-
tance of involving prospective users in the design process
[2]. Beer et al. used questionnaires and structured interviews
to understand older people’s openness and opinions on using
robotic assistance [38]. The authors found that their partici-
pants were open to the idea of robotic assistance for clean-
ing and organising/fetching. In this context, the participants
were concerned about the robot damaging the home, being
unreliable and incapable of doing what it would be asked
to do.
To sum up, these findings suggest that older people may
to be willing to use robotic assistance to overcome their
303
cognitive and physical inabilities. Identifying the purpose
of the robot and its development, though, has to involve all
stakeholders including prospective older people, healthcare
professionals, relatives and family.
3.2 Lack of Mutual Inspiration in the Development
of Robots for Older People
Most of the articles we found regarding social robots and
older people described older people as objects and did not
involve them as subjects in their research. Neven analysed
the interaction between robots, older test users and robot
designers and found that the designers were influenced by
stereotypes of older people as lonely, fragile, in need of care
and company [53]. In fact, his research indicates that the
deep-rooted stereotypes of older people in the minds of robot
designers made them unable to take in the older test users’
views of the robot and incorporate their requirements into the
designers’ practice. This was despite the fact that the older
test users presented themselves as independent, cognitively
and physically healthy [53]. In contrast to the stereotypi-
cal view of older people, evidence indicates that they are
far from passive consumers but, instead, technogenarians:
older individuals who creatively adapt and utilise technolog-
ical artefacts to suit their own needs [35]. Moreover, older
people as a group are very heterogeneous with a variety of
individual abilities, skills and experiences [54]. Furthermore,
age is likely to increase the differentiation within the “group”
more than within most other “groups” due to life experiences
and physical conditions [55]. For this reason, the diversity of
the older population requires open-mindedness but also cre-
ates challenges for robotic researchers and developers. The
provocative ideas and images from the media may also affect
how we perceive robots in real life [56].
3.3 Robot Aesthetics
There are reasons to believe that humanoid robots would
increase the adoption rate of robots in people’s lives since
these robots are able to use human tools and interact with peo-
ple in a natural, human way (e.g. using body languages such
as nodding or gazing in the same direction that its sensors
are focused) [25]. Humanoid social robots are human-made
autonomous mediators that interact with humans in a human-
like manner [57]. They are mechanical devices intended to
perform human tasks and resemble humans in their behav-
iour and/ or appearance [57]. Humanoids are also situated in
the interplay between machines and humans. In their inter-
action with humans, they are designed to communicate with,
for and as humans [56]. Four particularly interesting articles
were found in Science and Technology Studies in relation-
ship to humanoids and society [56–59]. They provide valu-
able insights into understanding the role of humanoids; they
123
304
point out the need of researching humanoids and their soci-
ological implications in society as a whole and on an indi-
vidual level. Robertson, for example, explores the gendering
of humanoid robots manufactured in Japan and proposes that
humanoid projects may be spurred by demographic problems
and Japanese women’s unwillingness to marry [58]. She
describes how humanoid robots can lead to posthuman sex-
ism. Zhao proposes that a conceptualised society has to be
redefined since there is no doubt that humanoid robots will be
more advanced and sophisticated as time goes by; future soci-
eties will be comprised of not only humans but humanoids,
creating a human–machine relationship [57].
3.4 Ethical Implications of Using Robots in Caring
for Older People
Our investigation identified a rich body of literature on eth-
ical implications regarding social robotics and older people
[10,37,40,60–63]. It has been demonstrated that most older
people could accept robots as functional helpers in the home
doing household chores [38], while the functions of offer-
ing companionship and monitoring evoked ethical issues.
Sharkey and Sharkey identified six main ethical concerns
when it comes to robots in elderly care: (1) reduced human
contact, (2) loss of privacy, (3) deception and infantilisation,
(4) loss of control, (5) loss of personal liberty, and (6) ques-
tions about responsibility (if something goes wrong when
older people are in control of the robot, who is to blame?)
[62]. Other researchers have also raised ethical concerns such
as [10]: What happens if the people become emotionally
attached to the robot and it breaks down? Will this cause
unnecessary stress? If the robot has more than one user, how
should it prioritise so as not to upset or neglect any of its
users? If the robot reminds a user to take her/his medicine
but the user refuses to take it, who is responsible for the
consequences? Sullins suggests that robotic companions can
only satisfice, but not truly satisfy, our physical and emotional
needs [64].
Common arguments to these criticisms or doubts are: If a
person is lonely, a robot may reduce isolation and increase
conversational opportunities with the robot itself as well as
with other humans [62]; a robot or telecare-system might
reduce certain risks and help the user to self-manage her
health and well-being [65]; a robot can be personalised and
individualised and thus fit the needs of the user; a robot might
free up the caregiver from monotonous tasks like cleaning so
he/she can spend quality time with the older person. Sparrow
and Sparrow propose increased involvement of older people
when it comes to the ethics of robot usage—older people
should be asked if they prefer robotic carers to humans carers
instead of having to choose between no carers or robotic car-
ers [40]. Similarly, Feil-Seifer and Mataric [60] propose that
there is a need for well-informed multidisciplinary studies;
123
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
Joyce and Loe [35] claim that if technology is applied cor-
rectly, it can enable and empower older people. Sparrow and
Sparrow suggest that the same amount of research funding
should go to human-centred solutions as to robotic research
[40].
3.5 Robotic Research Methodology
It has been suggested that current social robotic research in
regard to older people is plagued with vague methodologies
and findings [4,5,31,50]. In fact, Bemelmans et al.’s claim
that in their systematic review of socially assistive robots in
elderly care, the methodological quality of the studies they
found was mostly low [5]. Broekens et al. suggest that in the
field of social robots and older people, more work on meth-
ods is needed, as well as large-scale and long-term robust
studies to identify and verify the positive effects and nega-
tive implications of social robots in regard to older people [4].
Forlizzi et al. also argue that longitudinal studies are needed
to provide more clues to the interplay between ageing and
social robots [50]. Dautenhahn proposes, for instance, that
HRI research has to build on a foundation of tools, methods
and theories as well as transparency to allow other researchers
to replicate experiments and advance our understanding in
the research field [66]. However, Gaver provides a thought-
ful voice regarding performative research and design that we
also think is applicable to social robotic research:
We may wish to improve the standards of research
within the field, but from this perspective we should
realise that what we mean by ‘improve’, what crite-
ria we propose, even the assumption that shared stan-
dards are necessary, possible or desirable, are poten-
tially repressive acts of ontological politics [67]
3.6 Technical Determinism Versus Social Construction
of Social Robots
Technical determinism sees technology as the driving force
of social change [17]. In short, it is believed that society
responds more to technology than technology does to society
[17]. In this view, “technology is the primary agent of change,
not humans” [17, p. xvii]. As Wyatt points out:
The simplicity in this model is, in large part, the reason
for its endurance. It is also the model that makes most
sense to many people’s experience. For most of us, most
of the time, the technologies we use every day are of
mysterious origin and design. We have no idea whence
they came and possibly less idea how they actually
work. We simply adapt ourselves to their requirements
and hope they continue to function in the predictable
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
and expected ways promised by those who sold them
to us [68, p. 169].
As mentioned, the social constructivist approach devel-
oped as a critique of technical determinism, argues that
humans socially construct technology. In reviewing the lit-
erature on social robots regarding older people, Šabanović’s
article “Robots in Society, Society in Robots” was of par-
ticular interest [69]. It argues that the view of the interaction
between robots and users in society is driven by technological
determinism. According to the philosophy of technological
determinism, robots will have their own developmental path,
with no human influence and will drive social change [11].
In most current studies of HRI, robots are first developed and
then tested with users in lab settings [31]. In this deterministic
view of technology, the user has the passive role of evaluating
usability and acceptability of a pre-designed robot. Examples
include the exploration of whether a person is able to recog-
nise differences in robots’ behaviour styles (socially interac-
tive and socially ignorant) as different “robot personalities”
[31]; investigating where the robot should be spatially posi-
tioned in relationship to the human while interacting [70];
and how users with different personality traits would like to
be approached by a robot [71]. Developers use what Aldrich
calls a prediction or “inscription” of their assumptions of how
the target users will interact with the robot [72]. A determin-
istic approach leaves no room for older users to impact the
robot’s usage and effects on their everyday lives.
In contrast to technological determinism, Šabanović goes
on to explore the use of the mutual shaping of society and
technology as a framework for social robot design [69]. This
notion is based on the philosophy of social constructivism,
according to which technology and society will mutually
shape robots [13]. In this context, the robotic outcome is
determined by human choices and there is no single determi-
nant. Different actors or social groups may prefer one design
to another, and different groups may shape the robots dif-
ferently. The adoption of new technologies in a society is
seen as a co-construction between the technology and the
society in question [11]. For example, demographic changes
may drive the development of robots in elderly care but older
people can also affect the use, functionality and appearance
of the robot by rejecting, adopting and changing the available
robots. Šabanović emphasises that, “There is little recogni-
tion that robotics technologies might have differential effects
on different parts of society…by focusing on technical capa-
bilities, researchers disregard the complexities of the social
world that the resulting artefacts are expecting to inhabit and
affect” [69, p. 442]. Šabanović also argues that there seems
to be an uncritical view—that we will adapt to robots; that
we as humans will be willing to change our environment and
communication patterns to alter that of robot capability. One
could ask: Are we willing to dehumanise and substitute real
305
human relationships with the ones of robots? Šabanović sug-
gests that participatory design, in which prospective users and
innovators negotiate the end result (a specific robot) by an
iterative developmental process, may be used for the mutual
shaping of social robots to take place [69].
4 Discussion
This review is fundamentally a call to challenge the techno-
logical deterministic approach that characterises mainstream
social robotic research. It argues that the social robot in rela-
tionship to older people is a social construction. It argues for
recognition of the importance of understanding the relation-
ship between technology and society. The seven matters of
concern that have been presented are essential in order to gain
a comprehensive understanding of the social, structural and
individual factors that affect robotic development. There are,
however, other important matters of concerns, such as usabil-
ity, safety and risk. These were not, however, the central focus
in the key publications. This may be because social robots
are still in their infancy and very few are widely available,
used and accepted by older users [25]. Another assumption
may be that social robots will be manufactured artefacts that
are required to meet product regulations regarding safety and
risk before becoming available on the market.
As a result of attending to the seven prominent matters of
concerns described above, additional questions were raised.
Firstly, what will happen when social robots move out of the
lab and into our lives? Secondly, can robots as companions be
seen as a sign of dissatisfaction in the personal relationships
we have today? Thirdly, why are older people and children
configured alike by roboticists? Fourthly, can social robots
or geminoids be used as “human probes”? Fifthly, how is the
knowledge of robots translated, transformed and modified in
the field of social robotics? Lastly, what, if anything, should
be done? These questions are explored in this section.
4.1 What will Happen When Social Robots Move Out
of the Lab and into Our Lives?
If engineers are imposing an a priori definition of the users’
world building, attempting to ascribe the users’ intentions or
meaning in the HRI, one could ask what will happen to the
theories and frameworks of HRI that are derived from lab-
based research when robots are tested in the real world. A
major challenge is to develop robots that are safe and reliable
to use outside a well-defined environment such as the home
or at a care facility for older people [25]. In the real world
and during long-term use of social robots, humans might use
them in unpredictable ways so that they have unpredictable
influences or undesirable consequences that affect human
beings. An example of how difficult it is to predict the effects
of technologies is the introduction of snowmobiles to Skolt
123
306
Lapp reindeer herders [73]. Before 1960 the reindeer were
treated with great care by the Lapp herders. The reindeer had
a central place in the Lapp culture and reindeer meat was
their main source of food. Their skins were used for clothing
and shoes. In 1961 and the years after, snowmobiles were
introduced to the Skolt Lapps and their adoption was rapid.
By 1971 almost all Skolt Lapp households had at least one
snowmobile. Their noise and smell scared the reindeer, which
resulted in fewer calves being born and the animals becom-
ing afraid of humans. The stress also negatively affected the
quality of the meat. The cost of buying and maintaining snow-
mobiles also resulted in the Skolt Lapps killing their reindeer
and selling the meat to be able to afford snowmobiles. As a
consequence of the snowmobile diffusion, most Skolt Lapps
families are now unemployed and dependent on the Finnish
government for support at a subsistence level.
As in the example above, predicting the long-term effects
of technology is difficult. Technologies in eldercare are often
seen as a feasible solution to the “problem” of an ageing pop-
ulation [74], while the context of use, and how technologies
are given utility and value for the older person is overlooked.
Foucault has shown in his work that people are willing to sub-
ject themselves to a discourse and thereby become objectified
to that discourse [75]. This form of power, “governmentality”
as Foucault calls it, labels and explains different groups in
society [75]. Aging is often thought of as being synonymous
with the biological processes of aging. In this viewpoint, the
aging population is often seen as a “problem” that needs to
be addressed and solved [5]. With the help of the biomedical
model of aging, professionals can advise older people on how
to adapt to social assistive robots by presenting their positive
effects through a “professional gaze”. As an example, when
a social robot moves into the home of older people, they
might become objects of monitoring and might indirectly or
directly be influenced by the “public policy” form of power.
Being monitored can either be degrading or enhancing for
the older individual. The ethical question is, if the “proposed
solution” is based on the needs of the older individual or if
it is the perceived needs asserted by society to lower the cost
of care for the elderly? Thus, as a result, feeling safe in one’s
home, being able to interact with healthcare professionals,
friends and family from a distant, getting help from robots
with household tasks and having their company 24/7 may be
beneficial for some older people while having negative con-
sequences for others such as invasion of privacy, feeling out
of control of one’s life, loss of self, etc.
4.2 Can Robots as Companions be Seen as a Sign
of Dissatisfaction in the Personal Relationships
We Have Today?
Turkle’s analysis of the “robotic moment” indicates that our
willingness to have robotic companions is a reflection on our
123
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
dissatisfaction with our lives today [8]. She argues that the
company of robots may be preferred to humans because we
as human beings feel that we are in control in a human–robot
relationship and that robots will not judge us like other peo-
ple do [8]. Dautenhahn, on the other hand, emphasises that if
a robot is considered to be a friend or companion, we might
feel that we have to emotionally, psychologically and physi-
ologically invest in the human–robot relationship in order to
reward and please the robot. This might in turn be tiring and
overload our cognitive ability [76]. In the book The Media
Equation, Reeves and Nass investigate how people treat and
react to different media (computers, televisions, etc.) by com-
paring social behavioural rules between humans-and-humans
and humans-and-media [77]. The authors conclude that peo-
ple tend to react to and treat media in the same ways as they do
people. However, Dautenhahn argues that people do not treat
machines as people since we are more open to getting new
machines, such as smart phones or computers, than replac-
ing our children, family or friends [66]. When it comes to
social robots as companions to older people, are they devel-
oped to improve the life of older people or do they reinforce
the image of them as a burden to their relatives and society?
Are social robots as caregivers or companions merely tech-
nological solutions to the “problem” of an increased ageing
population in a society where this group is perceived as a
“problem” that needs to be addressed and solved?
4.3 Why are Older People and Children Configured Alike
by Roboticists?
An increasing number of robots are developed for children
and older adults such as Paro, and My Real Baby [25]. One
cannot help asking: Do older people like to be configured in
the same way as children? Do children and older people react
and respond to social robots in the same way? Sharkey and
Sharkey argue that in some aspects children and older people
seem to be alike: they both have a strong need for social con-
tact, lack an understanding of the underlying technology, and
respond positively to interactive robots [37]. Nor are older
people and children part of the workforce. On the other hand,
older people have a lifetime of experience that they may rely
on by applying new information to familiar mental models
and thinking [78]. Past research indicates that having a robot
that looks like a toy such as My Real Baby (a robotic doll
that becomes happy if you bounce it but gets distraught if
you bounce it too much) may be stigmatising, patronising
and infantilising [62]. Previous research also indicates that
even older people who enjoyed spending time with a toy
look alike robot would not buy one themselves due to social
pressures and fear of the negative attitudes of others [51].
These findings suggest that the appearance of the robot is
closely related to the emotions, values, feelings and inten-
tions enacted in HRIs.
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
4.4 Can Social Robots or Geminoids be Used as “Human
Probes”?
Robots seem to evoke ambivalent feelings. On the one hand
they can be useful for cleaning, fetching, and organising
[38]; on the other, there are fears that human contact will
be replaced by robots [37]. But can humanoid robots be
seen as mediating artefacts? Artefacts that help us to “make
sense” and understand more about the cultural constructions
of “robots versus humans”, contemporary identity theory and
how categories of human characteristics are being mobilised
[79]?
In 1999, Gaver et al. introduced cultural probes to elicit
responses from older people in order to understand their cul-
ture, thoughts and values [80]. In 2003 Hutchinson et al.
introduced technology probes to “understand the needs and
desires of users in real-world settings, the engineering goal
of field-testing the technology, and the design goal of inspir-
ing users and researchers to think about new technologies”
[81, p. 18]. When it comes to humanoid social robots, Zhao
argues that they differ from other technologies:
Humanoid social robots differ from computer-mediated
communication technologies in that they are not a
medium through which humans interact, but rather
a medium with which humans interact. Acting like
human surrogates, humanoid social robots extend the
domain of human expression, discourse and communi-
cation into the computerised world [57, p. 402].
Can geminoids (i.e. robots that look like a clone/twin of its
human original, but without any “artificial” intelligence [82])
be used as “human probes” for us to understand more about
HRI and human communication [59,79]? What is human?
When and how are human characteristics or personality rel-
evant and important? What is a relationship or companion-
ship? When and how do certain technologies become rele-
vant? For whom? What are the ethical implications of hav-
ing humanoids that looks like the “perfect female or male”?
Robertson argues that this might contribute to negative body
images of real humans [58]. In posthumanism, what happens
if we turn ourselves into our tools or instruments? How will
that affect our identity and will it increase ageism? Referring
to ANT, what mediating role would the tool be given? Will
social robots reassemble the social?
4.5 How is the Knowledge of Robots Translated,
Transformed and Modified in the Field of Social
Robotics?
The conceptions of robots are not only affected by how they
are portrayed in the media but also differ between novice
users and experts, as well as between different researchers
307
and different paradigms [83]. The research findings of Weiss
et al. indicate that the notion of the human–robot rela-
tionship is influenced by the degree of involvement in the
development process [83]. People have a tendency to favour
information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses [84].
Representations of reality are implicit, entangled and insepa-
rably linked reflecting multiple realities [20]. ANT maintains
that there is no single truth or objective expert, but many
experts with different professional and social backgrounds
looking at the world from different worldviews. They see
things differently and represent what they have seen in a
diversity of ways [20]. Different moods or spirits support
the ideas and beliefs affecting the development of robots. As
an illustration, we quote two researchers, Rodney A. Brooks
and Lucy Suchman, on their perceptions of the same robot:
Kismet. The robot was developed by Breazeal to simulate
human emotions and appearance in HRI. Brooks, Panasonic
Professor of Robotics (emeritus) at MIT, describes Kismet as
a life-like sociable creature: “Kismet is the world’s first robot
that is truly sociable, that can interact with people on an equal
basis, and which people accept as a humanoid creature” [9,
p. 65]. In contrast, Suchman, Professor of Anthropology
of Science and Technology, describes her encounter with
Kismet, which she sees as an unreliable autonomous robot
[29]:
The contrast between my own encounter with Kismet
and that recorded on the demonstration videos makes
clear the ways in which Kismet’s affect is an effect
not simply of the device itself but Breazeal’s trained
reading of Kismet’s actions and her extended history of
labours with the machine. In the absence of Breazeal,
correspondingly, Kismet’s apparent randomness attest
the robot’s reliance on the performative capabilities of
its particular “human caregiver” [29, p. 246].
This example illustrates multiple realities and how the
thinking of social robots is assembled and reassembled by
different actors.
Much of the literature in HRIs presents research studies on
robots as successes, while very few failures and breakdowns
are reported [6,25]. If we could learn from other researchers’
mistakes, robotic projects would not have to start from square
one every time. Portraying robots as more capable than they
actually are makes the general public and media believe and
expect more of robots than actually can be delivered outside
a controlled lab environment.
4.6 What Should be Done?
There is a significant likelihood that a huge number of older
people are going to be companioned and monitored by robots
instead of by real people in the future. We can confront this
and find an ethical position from which to view the situa-
123
308
tion and act. The ethical concerns can be addressed by robot
development guidelines and legislation on their use [62]. The
guidelines should be based on the best interest of older peo-
ple, protecting their privacy and interests. Verbeek argues
that technologies should be ethically assessed [85], that is,
they should do no harm (Is privacy respected, for example?),
be beneficence (Do people know that they are being mon-
itored and how the data is used?), and be fair (Are people
being treated equally?). To find an ethical position on social
robots and older people we need to involve them in social
robot design, let them try different kinds of robots, let them
reflect on it and then listen to their experiences and opinions.
As Dodig-Crnkovic concludes:
One thing to keep in mind is that we do not want
machines to behave like humans. We want them to
behave as ideal humans. In the same way as we expect
them to calculate without error, which they actually do,
while humans err (errare humanum est!), we expect
machines to behave blamelessly. We obviously still
have a long way to go to achieve that goal [63, p. 68].
5 Conclusions and Future Work
In this article we set out to map the range of currently held
scientific positions of matters of concern of social robots and
older people. We identified seven prominent matters: the role
of robots in older people’s lives; factors affecting older peo-
ple’s acceptance of robots; the lack of mutual inspiration in
the development of robots for older people; robot aesthetics;
ethical implications of using robots in caring for older peo-
ple; robotic research methodology; and technical determin-
ism versus social construction of social robots. According to
ANT the importance rests in understanding how people, ideas
and things become connected, are assembled and reassem-
bled [12]. We have tried to give a fair account of the entire
range of positions and arguments held by different scientists.
Their texts have mediated matters of concern of social robots
and older people. Social robots for older people are still in
the making and no unified agreement or settlement has been
reached. Based on the result of our review, the authors pro-
pose the following future research in the field of social robots
and older people when taking Science and Technology Stud-
ies into account:
1. There is a clear need for studies on older people as social
robotic users. What are the matters of concern of older
adults when it comes to social robots? Few studies have
investigated how older people are represented as technol-
ogy users. We need to redefine the perceptions of older
people in order to fairly represent who they are and to
avoid stereotypical views of them as a homogenous group
of weak and passive people.
123
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
2. There is a need for participatory design that includes users
at the early stages of social robot development and con-
tinues to include them iteratively throughout the design
process. In this way, it will become more apparent at an
early stage for engineers, designers and users to iden-
tify the influencing technological changes and their social
consequences. All stakeholders should be involved—not
just older people or users—which means both the eager
beneficiaries and the critical challengers. Through partic-
ipatory design, traditional stereotypical views of robots
can be undermined and a clearer understanding of what
social robots of today really can and cannot do can be
achieved.
3. High-quality research is needed, particularly longitudinal
studies. Longitudinal research on social robots and older
people should address the heterogeneity of the group.
The positive and negative long-term effects of how social
robots are perceived by older people with different val-
ues need to be investigated. Increased understanding is
desirable of the situations, contexts and groups of older
people where different types of social robots will inhabit
or enhance their abilities or well-being.
4. There is also a need for conceptual clarity, thoroughness
and relevance of HRI methodologies as well as trans-
parency in how the research is carried out to be able to
compare and validate the results.
Learning from the involvement of older users, or the lack
of it, in technological development in general, we find that
even though the images of old people are improving, they are
still neglected as users and consumers of new communication
technologies. This also goes for the design of robots and the
planning of old people’s physical and social environments.
Old people are included in the terms and concepts Nelly
Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch refer to when they try to capture
users [72]: “lay end user” (introduced by Ann Rudinow Saet-
nan) and “implicated actors” (formulated by Adele Clarke).
“Lay end users” differentiates between those involved and
not involved in the expert discourse. “Implicated users” are
defined as “…those silent or not present but affected by the
action. These implicated users consist either of those who are
physically present but discursively constructed and targeted
by others, or of those who are physically present but who are
generally ignored or made invisible by those in power” [72,
p. 6]. Old people belong to both these groups. Old people are
definitely considered but not consulted in the development of
robots, and matters that concern them are not identified in the
design process. Instead, they are assumed to have a general
need for social robots due to societal changes such as ageing
demographics and demands from the healthcare industry.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Professors Henrik
Schärfe, Peter Ullmark and Bo Westerlund who individually, through
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
fruitful discussions with the first author, inspired her to write this paper
(but who cannot be held accountable for any of the content). We also
would like to thank Dr Elisabeth Dalholm Hornyánszky, Dr Per-Olof
Hedvall, the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable and insight-
ful comments on an earlier version of the paper, and Eileen Deaner
for proofreading. This research was partially funded by the European
Commission under FP7-ICT-288146, HOBBIT and FP7-ICT-288173,
GiraffPlus.
References
1. Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of
healthcare robots for the older population: review and future direc-
tions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):319–330
2. Flandorfer P (2012) Population ageing and socially assistive robots
for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for
user acceptance. Int J Popul Res 2012:1–13
3. Young JE et al (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying
insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):95–108
4. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots
in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103
5. Bemelmans R et al (2012) Socially assistive robots in elderly care:
a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J Am Med Dir
Assoc 13(2):114–120.e1
6. Kanda T, Ishiguro H (2012) Human–robot interaction in social
robotics. CRC Press, Boca Raton
7. Levy D (2008) Love+ sex with robots: the evolution of human–
robot relations. Harper Perennial, New York
8. Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from tech-
nology and less from each other. Basic Books, New York
9. Brooks RA (2002) Flesh and machines: how robots will change us.
Pantheon Books, New York
10. Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (2011) Robot ethics: the ethical and
social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge
11. Bijker WE (2009) Social construction of technology. In: Jan Kyrre
Berg Olsen SAP, Hendricks VF (eds) A companion to the philos-
ophy of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge
12. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-
network-theory. In: Latour B (ed) Reassembling the social—
an introduction to actor-network-theory, vol 1. (Foreword by
Latour B). Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 316. ISBN-10:
0199256047, ISBN-13: 9780199256044
13. MacKenzie D, Wajcman J (1999) The social shaping of technology.
Open University Press, Buckingham
14. Lie M, Sørensen KH (1996) Making technology our own?: domes-
ticating technology into everyday life. Scandinavian University
Press, Oslo
15. Bijker W, Law J (1994) Shaping technology/building society: stud-
ies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge
16. Fuglsan L (2001) Three perspectives in STS in the policy context.
Visions of STS: counterpoints in science, technology and society
studies. SUNY Series in Science, Technology and Society, New
York, pp 35–55
17. Kaplan DM (2009) Readings in the philosophy of technology.
Rowman & Littlefield, Landham
18. Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the construction of
scientific facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton
19. Latour B (1991) Technology is society made durable. In: Law J
(ed) A sociology of Monsters new. Essays on power, technology
and domination. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 103–131
20. Law J, Hassard J (1999) Actor network theory and after. Blackwell,
Oxford
21. Brown N, Webster A (2004) New medical technologies and society:
reordering life. Polity Press, Cambridge
309
22. Silverstone R, Hirsch E (1992) Consuming technologies:
media and information in domestic spaces. Psychology Press,
London
23. Silverstone R, Hirsch E, Morley D (1992) Information and com-
munication technologies and the moral economy of the house-
hold. Consuming technologies: media and information in domestic
spaces. Routledge, London, pp 15–31
24. Hackett EJ et al (2008) The handbook of science and technology
studies. The MIT Press, Cambridge
25. Winfield A (2012) Robotics: a very short introduction. Oxford
University Press, Oxford
26. Nourbakhsh IR (2013) Robot futures: an ethics of critical respon-
siveness. The MIT Press, Cambridge
27. Breazeal CL (2004) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press,
Cambridge
28. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially
interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42(3):143–166
29. Suchman L (2006) Human–machine reconfigurations: plans and
situated actions. Cambridge University Press, New York
30. Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis
in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve
trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 24(2):105–112
31. Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots: dimensions
of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci
362(1480):679–704
32. Pulman S (2007) Towards necessary and sufficient conditions for
being a companion. In: Artificial companions in society: perspec-
tives on the present and future. Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford,
p 36
33. Walters ML et al (2007) Robotic etiquette: results from user studies
involving a fetch and carry task. In: 2nd ACM/IEEE international
conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), 2007
34. Breazeal C (2011) Social robots for health applications. In: Annual
international conference of the IEEE on engineering in medicine
and biology society, EMBC 2011
35. Joyce K, Loe M (2010) A sociological approach to ageing, tech-
nology and health. Sociol Health Illn 32(2):171–180
36. Oost E, Reed D, Oost E, Reed D (2011) Towards a sociological
understanding of robots as companions. In: Lamers MH, Verbeek
FO (eds) Human–robot personal relationships. Springer, Heidel-
berg, pp 11–18
37. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2011) Children, the elderly, and interactive
robots. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):32–38
38. Beer JM et al (2012) The domesticated robot: design guidelines for
assisting older adults to age in place. ACM, New York
39. Heerink M et al (2009) Measuring acceptance of an assistive social
robot: a suggested toolkit. In: IEEE
40. Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future
of aged care. Minds Mach 16(2):141–161
41. Riessman (1965) The “helper” therapy principle. Soc Work 10:
27–32
42. Roger K et al (2012) Social commitment robots and dementia. Can
J Aging 31(1):87–94
43. Shibata T et al (2009) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evalua-
tion of a seal robot. Adv Robot 23(4):443–458
44. Banks MR, Banks WA (2002) The effects of animal-assisted ther-
apy on loneliness in an elderly population in long-term care facili-
ties. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci 57(7):M428–M432
45. Wada K et al (2002) Analysis of factors that bring mental effects to
elderly people in robot assisted activity. In: IEEE/RSJ international
conference on intelligent robots and systems
46. Wada K et al (2004) Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly
people and nurses at a day service center. Proc IEEE 92(11):
1780–1788
47. Wada K et al (2005) Psychological and social effects of one year
robot assisted activity on elderly people at a health service facil-
123
310
ity for the aged. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international
conference on robotics and automation, 2005 (ICRA 2005)
48. Pollack ME et al (2002) Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the
elderly. In: AAAI workshop on automation as eldercare
49. Salvini P, Laschi C, Dario P (2010) Design for acceptability:
improving robots’ coexistence in human society. Int J Soc Robot
2(4):451–460
50. Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2004) Assistive robotics and
an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Human–
Computer Interact 19(1–2):25–59
51. Kidd CD, Taggart W, Turkle S (2006) A sociable robot to encourage
social interaction among the elderly. In: Proceedings 2006 IEEE
international conference on robotics and automation, 2006 (ICRA
2006)
52. Heerink M et al (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social
agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int J Soc Robot
2(4):361–375
53. Neven L (2010) ‘But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories
and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociol Health illn 32(2):
335–347
54. Czaja SJ, Lee CC (2007) The impact of aging on access to tech-
nology. Univers Access in the Inf Soc 5(4):341–349
55. Kohlbacher F, Herstatt C (2008) The silver market phenomenon:
business opportunities in an era of demographic change. Springer,
Berlin
56. Shaw-Garlock G (2009) Looking forward to sociable robots. Int J
Soc Robot 1(3):249–260
57. Zhao S (2006) Humanoid social robots as a medium of communi-
cation. New Media Soc 8(3):401–419
58. Robertson J (2010) Gendering humanoid robots: robo-sexism in
Japan. Body Soc 16(2):1–36
59. Coeckelbergh M (2011) You, robot: on the linguistic construction
of artificial others. AI Soc 26(1):61–69
60. Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ (2011) Socially assistive robotics. IEEE
Robot Autom Mag 18(1):24–31
61. Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2012) The eldercare factory. Gerontology
58(3):282–288
62. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues
in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):27–40
63. Dodig-Crnkovic G, Çürüklü B (2012) Robots: ethical by design.
Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):61–71
64. Sullins J (2012) Robots, love and sex: the ethics of building a love
machine. Affect Comput 3(4):398–409
65. Callén B et al (2009) Telecare research: (Cosmo) politicizing
methodology. ALTER Eur J Disabil Res 3(2):110–122
66. Dautenhahn K, Dautenhahn K (2007) Socially intelligent robots:
dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol
Sci 362(1480):679–704
67. Gaver W (2012) What should we expect from research through
design? In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on
human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York
68. Wyatt S (2008) Technological determinism is dead: long live tech-
nological determinism. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M,
Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies.
MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 165–180
69. Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. Int J Soc
Robot 2(4):439–450
70. Hüttenrauch H et al (2006) Investigating spatial relationships in
human–robot interaction. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference
on intelligent robots and systems
71. Walters ML et al (2005) The influence of subjects’ personality traits
on personal spatial zones in a human–robot interaction experiment.
In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive
communication (ROMAN 2005)
123
Int J of Soc Robotics (2014) 6:299–310
72. Oudshoorn N, Pinch T (2003) How users matter: the co-
construction of users and technology (inside technology). The MIT
Press, Cambridge
73. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York
74. Bouma H et al (2007) Gerontechnology in perspective. Gerontech-
nology 6(4):190–216
75. Foucault M (1982) The subject and power. Crit Inquiry 8(4):
777–795
76. Dautenhahn K (2004) Socially intelligent agents in human primate
culture. In: Trappl R, Payr S (eds) Agent culture: human–agent
interaction in a multicultural world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah
77. Reeves B, Nass CI (1996) The media equation: how people treat
computers, television, and new media like real people and places.
Center for the Study of Language and Information/Cambridge
University Press, Chicago/New York
78. Gassmann O, Reepmeyer G (2011) Universal design: innovations
for all ages. In: Kohlbacher F, Herstatt C (eds) The silver market
phenomenon. Springer, Berlin, pp 101–116
79. Burrows E (2011) The birth of a robot race. Eng Technol 6(10):
46–48
80. Gaver B, Dunne T, Pacenti E (1999) Design: cultural probes. Inter-
actions 6(1):21–29
81. Hutchinson H et al (2003) Technology probes: inspiring design for
and with families. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York
82. Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Geminoid: teleoperated
android of an existing person. Humanoid robots–new develop-
ments. I-Tech, Vienna, p 14
83. Weiss A et al (2011) Looking forward to a “robotic society”? Int J
Soc Robot 3(2):111–123
84. Goffman E (2005) Interaction ritual: essays in face-to-face behav-
ior. Aldine Transaction, Piscataway
85. Verbeek PP (2011) Moralizing technology: understanding and
designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago
Susanne Frennert who has taught and worked in the fields of usability
and user-centred design in Sweden and abroad, is a PhD candidate in
Rehabilitation Engineering at the Department of Design Science, Lund
University, Sweden. Her research interest is elderly users and non-users
in the adoption process of social robots.
Britt Östlund is Professor in Welfare Technology at Lund University
and heads the Ageing and Design Programme. Based on the concept
“modern ageing”, she is devoted to innovations and design driven by
older citizens to develop products and services in cooperation with old
people, local governments and companies.