skip to main content
10.1145/2901790.2901811acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Rethinking the Design of Robotic Pets for Older Adults

Published:04 June 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Robots are seen as a potential solution to the perceived needs of the aging population. Thus far, research has primarily focused on robotics for the functional and emotional support of older adults. Robotic pets have been developed primarily for the older adult who is perceived as lonely and isolated, and fears have consequently arisen that robots will replace human caregivers and deceive older adults into developing relationships with them. Missing is the perspective of older adults on the ethics of and potential uses for robotic companion pets. In this study, we conducted focus groups with 41 older adults. We discuss concepts raised by focus group participants such as giving into the fiction of the robotic pet, the social role of the robot, and the role of reciprocity in building a relationship with a robotic pet. We present resulting considerations for new directions for robotic pet design for older adults.

References

  1. Morana Alafi. 2015. Social robots: Things or agents? AI & Society. Published online: 07 November 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Marian R. Banks, Lisa M. Willoughby, William A. Banks. 2008. Animal-Assisted Therapy and Loneliness in Nursing Homes: Use of Robotic versus Living Dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 9, 3: 173--177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Willy Barnett, Kathy Keeling, and Thorsten Gruber. 2015. Investigating User Perceptions of HRI: A Marketing Approach. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (HRI'15 Extended Abstracts), 1516. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jenay M. Beer, Cory-Ann Smarr, Tiffany L. Chen, Akansha Prakash, Tracy L. Mitzner, Charles C. Kemp, Wendy A. Rogers. 2012. The Domesticated Robot: Design Guidelines for Assisting Older Adults to Age in Place. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI'12), 335--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Timothy W. Bickmore and Rosalind W. Picard. 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term humancomputer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12, 2 (June 2005), 293327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ann Brenoff. Toy Cat Robots May Be Just The Thing For Lonely Seniors. Huffington Post Article. (19 December 2015). Retrieved January 13, 2016 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/toy-cat-robotsmight-be-the-answer-to-seniorloneliness_564e0ee1e4b08c74b734c9b9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Cynthia Breazeal. 2003. Toward sociable robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42: 167--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Elizabeth Broadbent, Rie Tamagawa, Ngaire Kerse, Brett Knock, Anna Patience, Bruce Macdonald. 2009. Retirement home staff and residents' preferences for healthcare robots. In The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. 645--650.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Joost Broekens, Marcel Heerink, Henk Rosendal. 2009. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8, 2: 94--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Praminda Caleb-Solly, Sanja Dogramadzi, David Ellender, Tina Fear, Herjan van den Heuvel. 2014. A Mixed-Method Approach to Evoke Creative and Holistic Thinking about Robots in a Home Environment. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI'14), 374--381. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Wan-Ling Chang and Selma Šabanović. 2015. Studying Socially Assistive Robots in Their Organizational Context: Studies with PARO in a Nursing Home. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (HRI'15 Extended Abstracts), 227--228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Wan-Ling Chang, Selma Šabanović, and Lesa Huber. 2013. Use of seal-like robot PARO in sensory group therapy for older adults with dementia. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Humanrobot interaction (HRI'13), 101--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Kathy Charmaz. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Diego Compagna and Florian Kohlbacher. 2015. The Limits of participatory technology development: The case of service robots in care facilities for older people. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 93, 1931.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Phil Trans R Soc B 362: 679--704.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Kerstin Dautenhahn, Sarah Woods, Christina Kaouri, Michael L. Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, Iain Werry. 2005. What is a Robot Companion -- Friend, Assistant, or Butler? In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1192--1197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Jeannette Durick, Toni Robertson, Margot Brereton, Frank Vetere, Bjorn Nansen. 2013. Dispelling Ageing Myths in Technology Design. In Proceedings of the 25th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference: Augmentation, Application, Innovation, Collaboration (OzCHI'13), 467--476. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ylva Fernaeus, Maria Håkansson, Mattias Jacobsson, and Sara Ljungblad. 2010. How do you play with a robotic toy animal?: a long-term study of Pleo. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC'10), 39--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jodi Forlizzi, Carl DiSalvo, and Francine Gemperle. 2004. Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 1 (June 2004), 25--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Susanne Frennert and Britt Östlund. 2014. Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and Older People. International Journal of Social Robotics 6, 2: 299--310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Leonardo Giusti, Eleonora Mencarini, and Massimo Zancanaro. 2010. "Luckily, I don't need it": elderly and the use of artifacts for time management. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on HumanComputer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (NordiCHI'10), 198--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Marcel Heerink, Ben Kröse, Bob Wielinga, and Vanessa Evers. 2008. Enjoyment intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction (HRI'08), 113--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Marcel Heerink, Jordi Albo-Canals, Meritchell ValentiSoler, Pablo Martinez-Martin, Jori Zondag, Carolien Smits, Stefanie Anisuzzaman. 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 104--115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Suzanne Hutson, Soo Ling Lim, Peter J. Bentley, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, Anne Bowling. Investigating the Suitability of Social Robots for the Wellbeing of the Elderly. Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction. Design for Aging. Volume 6974 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 578--587. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Cory D. Kidd, Will Taggart, Sherry Turkle. 2006. A Sociably Robot to Encourage Social Interaction among the Elderly. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 3972--3976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Reza Kachouie, Sima Sedighadeli, Rajiv Khosla, MeiTai Chu. 2014. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed method systematic literature review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Rajiv Khosla, Mei-Tai Chu, Reza Kachouie. 2012. Embodying Care in Matilda -- An Affective Communication Robot for the Elderly in Australia. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI'12), 295--304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Stephen C. Kramer, Erika Friedmann, Penny L. Bernstein. 2009. Comparison of the Effect of Human Interaction, Animal-Assisted Therapy, and AIBOAssisted Therapy on Long-Term Care Residents with Dementia. Anthrozoös 22, 1: 43--57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Alexander Libin and Jiska Cohen-Mansfield. 2004. Therapeutic robocat for nursing home residents with dementia: Preliminary inquiry. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias 19, 2: 111--116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Sean A. McGlynn, Shawn C. Kemple, Tracy L. Mitzner, Chih-Hung King, Wendy A. Ragers. 2014. Understanding Older Adults' Perceptions of Usefulness for the Paro Robot. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting, 1914--1918.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Ádám Miklósi and Márta Gácsi. 2012. On the utilization of social animals as a model for social robotics. Frontiers in Psychology 19, Article 75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Masahiro Mori (Translated by Karl F. MacDorman and Norri Kageki). 2012. The Uncanny Valley. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 19, 2: 98--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Toshiharu Mukai, Shinya Hirano, Hiromichi Nakashima, Yo Kato, Yuki Sakaida, Shijie Guo, Shigeyuki Hosoe. 2010. Development of a NursingCare Assistant Robot RIBA That Can Lift a Human in Its Arms. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ 2010 International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2010), 5996--5601.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Louis Neven. 2010.'But obviously not for me': Robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociology of Health and Illness 32, 2: 335--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Alexander Peine, Ingo Rollwagen, Louis Neven. 2014. The rise of the "innosumer"-- Rethinking older technology users. Technology Forecasting and Social Change 82, 199--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Martha E. Pollack, Laura Brown, Dirk Colbry, Cheryl Orosz, Bart Peintner, et al. 2002. Pearl: A Mobile Robotic Assistant for the Elderly. In Workshop on Automation as Caregiver: the Role of Intelligent Technology in Elder Care (AAAI), 85--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Akanksha Prakash, Jenay M. Beer, Travis Deyle, CoryAnn Smarr, Tiffany L. Chen, Tracy L. Mitzner, Charles C. Kemp, and Wendy A. Rogers. 2013. Older adults' medication management in the home: how can robots help? In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction (HRI'13), USA, 283--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Akanksha Prakash, Charles C. Kemp, and Wendy A. Rogers. 2014. Older adults' reactions to a robot's appearance in the context of home use. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Humanrobot interaction (HRI'14), 268--269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Hayley Robinson, Bruce MacDonald, Elizabeth Broadbent. 2014. The Role of Healthcare Robots for Older People at Home: A Review. International Journal of Social Robotics 6, 4: 575--591.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Yvonne Rogers and Gary Marsden. 2013. Does he take sugar? Moving beyond the rhetoric of compassion. interactions 20, 4: 48--57. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Selma Šabanović. 2010. Robots in Society, Society in Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 2, 4: 439--450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Selma Šabanović, Wan-Ling Chang, Casey C. Bennett, Jennifer A. Piatt, David Hakken. 2015. A Robot of My Own: Participatory Design of Socially Assistive Robots for Independently Living Older Adults Diagnosed with Depression Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for Aging. Volume 9193 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 104--114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Alessandra Maria Sabelli, Takayuki Kanda, Norihiro Hagita. A Conversational Robot in an Elderly Care Center: an Ethnographic Study. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI'11). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Harvey Sacks. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Amanda Sharkey and Noel Sharkey. 2012. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology 14, 1: 27--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Robert Sparrow. 2002. The march of the robot dogs. Ethics and Information Technology 4, 4: 305--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Robert Sparrow and Linda Sparrow. 2006. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines 16, 2: 141--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Cady M. Stanton, Peter H. Kahn Jr., Rachel L. Severson, Jolina H. Ruckert, and Brian T. Gill. 2008. Robotic animals might aid in the social development of children with autism. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction (HRI'08), 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Norman Makoto Su, Leslie S. Liu, and Amanda Lazar. 2014. Mundanely miraculous: the robot in healthcare. In Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on HumanComputer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI'14), 391--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Marcus Sanchez Svensson and Tomas Sokoler. 2008. Ticket-to-talk-television: designing for the circumstantial nature of everyday social interaction. In Proceedings of the Nordic conference on Humancomputer interaction: building bridges (NordiCHI'08), 334--343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Sherry Turkle. Connected, but alone? Video. (February 2012). Retrieved January 12th , 2016 from https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together?language=enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Sherry Turkle, Will Taggart, Cory D. Kidd, Olivia Dasté. 2006. Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science 18, 4: 347--361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. John Vines, Gary Pritchard, Peter Wright, Patrick Olivier, Katie Brittain. 2015. An Age-Old Problem: Examining the Discourses of Ageing in HCI and Strategies for Future Research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22, 1: Article 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Kazuyoshi Wada and Takanori Shibata. 2007. Living With Seal Robots--Its Sociopsychological and Physiological Influences on the Elderly at a Care House. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 23, 5: 1250--1255. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. James E. Young, Richard Hawkins, Ehud Sharlin, Takeo Igarashi. 2009. Toward Acceptable Domestic Robots: Applying Insights from Social Psychology. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 1: 95--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Rethinking the Design of Robotic Pets for Older Adults

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      DIS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems
      June 2016
      1374 pages
      ISBN:9781450340311
      DOI:10.1145/2901790

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 June 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      DIS '16 Paper Acceptance Rate107of418submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate1,158of4,684submissions,25%

      Upcoming Conference

      DIS '24
      Designing Interactive Systems Conference
      July 1 - 5, 2024
      IT University of Copenhagen , Denmark

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader