Experimenting with iCat in an eldercare environment Marcel Heerink Instituut voor Information Engineering - Hogeschool van Amsterdam Universiteit van Amsterdam - Human Computer Systems & Intelligent Systems co-researchers: Vanessa Evers, Bob Wielinga , Ben Krose

Background 2000 2025

Robots & eldercare Paro Pearl Aibo

Research question Is there a measurable influence of perceived social abilities on the acceptance of autonomous interactive systems by elders in an eldercare environment?

Approach Quantitative research iCat Wizard of Oz +S and –S version Questionnaire Observations Functional and conversational acceptance Field experiment: 2 eldercare institutions (Archipel and Ankerplaats)

Abilities listening attentively (looking at the participant, nodding), being nice and pleasant to interact with (smiling, being helpful), remembering little personal details about people (using their names), being expressive, admitting mistakes.

Conditions

Possible functionalities Agenda/reminder Device interface Monitor Companion

Questionnaire UTAUT + SA = social abilities (-) PE = performance expectancy EE = effort expectancy SI = social influence AT = attitude toward using technology SE = self-efficacy ANX = anxiety ITU = intention to use + SA = social abilities (-) + feeling comfortable talking to a robot (conversational acceptance) 5 point scale Questions instead of statements

Results 1 Construct Cronbach’s Alpha t Sig. (2-tailed) performance expectancy ,7649 -0,1327 0,8953 effort expectancy ,8610 0,3622 0,7195 social influence ,2997* 0,3453 0,7322 attitude toward using technology ,8889 0,4961 0,6230 self-efficacy ,8942 0,4567 0,6509 anxiety ,4303* -0,0046 0,9964 intention to use ,8954 0,4036 0,6891 all constructs ,9346 all questions ,9084

Results 2 Did you feel uncomfortable talking to a robot? condition N Mean t Sig. (2-tailed) more social 17 1,00 -3,7500 0,0015 less social 19 1,53

Results 3 Would you want to use the iCat immediately if you could? gender N Mean t Sig. (2-tailed) male 11 1,45 2,1717 0,0426 female 25 0,72

Observations conversational expressions by participants more social less social nodding head 66 54 shaking head 16 15 greet with hand 2 'don't know' gesture 3 move away 4 approach robot 17 7 smile 42 30 laugh 26 9 surprise show irritation (frown) 1 verbal greeting 36 21

Observations 2 Item t Sig. (2-tailed) Mann-Whitney U Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) Positive 1 2,450 0,020 92,000 0,027 Negative 2 -1,685 0,108 131,000 All items 2,063 0,047 102,500 0,060

Movie Start

Conclusions & discussion UTAUT constructs show no significant differences between more en less social condition There are significant differences concerning “conversational acceptance”: participants felt more uncomfortable and used more conversational expressions with a more social robot Other differences are related to gender (could be a generation related result) Further research: On screen agents Different experimental conditions? Work on ‘social abilities?’ More elaborate observation model