Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Looking Forward to a “Robotic Society”?

Notions of Future Human-Robot Relationships

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reports on an explorative investigation comparing the notions of future human-robot relationships of the participants of a user study who interacted with a humanoid robot for the first time on the one hand, and those of experts from the industry on the other hand. By means of in-depth interviews, data on the following topics was gathered from 52 user study participants and six experts: (1) quality of life, health, and security, (2) working conditions and employment, (3) education, (4) cultural context. A content analysis of the interview material derived five key aspects of the future “robotic society”: (1) replacement, (2) competition, (3) safety and supervision, (4) increasing productivity, (5) cost and benefit assessment. Furthermore, a description of what makes a robot different from a machine or a human could be obtained. Additionally, the interviews were supplemented by two standardized questionnaires to measure the participants’ general attitude and acceptance towards robots. The article highlights the difference regarding viewpoints and understandings of the future human-robot relationships between novice users and experts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersson T, Wickelgren M (2009) Who is colonizing whom? Intertwined identities in product development projects. Ephemera: Theory Polit Organ 9(2):168–181

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arras K, Cerqui D (2005) Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000-people survey. Tech Rep 0605–001, Autonomous Systems Lab (ASL), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL)

  3. Badmington N (2000) Readers in cultural criticism: posthumanism. Palgrave, Hamshire

    Google Scholar 

  4. Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Lente Hv (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 18(3):285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bringsjord S (2008) Ethical robots: the future can heed us. AI & Soc 22(4):539–550

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown N, Michael M (2003) A sociology of expectations. retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 15(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (2000) Contested futures. A sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate, Aldershot. Introduction, pp 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  8. Decker M (2002) Robotik. Perspektiven für menschliches Handeln in der zukünftigen Gesellschaft. Technikfolgenabschätzung 2(11):107–114

    Google Scholar 

  9. Decker M (2007) Can humans be replaced by autonomous robots? Ethical reflections in the framework of an interdisciplinary technology assessment. In: Workshop at ICRA’07, 2007 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation

  10. Gibbons J (1982) Exploratory workshop on the social impacts of robotics. Tech Rep PB82-184862, Congress of the United States (Office of Technology Assessment)

  11. Gray C (2001) Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age. Brunner-Routledge

  12. Hansen J, Holm L, Frewer L, Robinson P, Sandøe P (2003) Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41(2):111–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harkness J, van de Vijver F, Mohler PP (2003) Cross-cultural survey methods. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hornyak T (2006) Loving the machine: the art and science of Japanese robots. Kodansha International

  15. Jasanoff S (2005) Civic epistemologies. In: Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 247–271

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jasanoff S, Kim SH (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the US and South Korea. Minerva 47(2):119–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jensen K, Lassen J, Robinson P, Sandøe P (2005) Lay and expert perceptions of zoonotic risks: understanding conflicting perspectives in the light of moral theory. Int J Food Microbiol 99(3):245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaplan F (2005) Everyday robotics: robots as everyday objects. In: Proceedings of the 2005 joint conference on Smart objects and ambient intelligence: innovative context-aware services: usages and technologies. ACM, New York, pp 59–64

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Knight W (2005) The 2020 vision of robotic assistants unveiled. NewScientist.com

  20. Lente Hv, Rip A (1998) The rise of membrane technology: from rhetorics to social reality. Soc Stud Sci 28(2):221–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. MacKenzie D (1993) Inventing accuracy: a historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. Michael M (2000) Futures of the present from performativity to prehension. In: Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (eds) Contested futures. A sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 21–39

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T (2006) Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot interaction. AI Soc 20(2):138–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki J, Han N, Shin J, Burke J, Kato K (2007) Implications on humanoid robots in pedagogical applications from cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea, and the USA. In: Proceedings of ROMAN, pp 1052–1057

  25. Patton MQ (1980) Qualitative evaluation methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shaw-Garlock G (2009) Looking forward to sociable robots. Special issue on: rhythms and robot relation. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):249–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach 16(2):141–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Takayama L, Ju W, Nass C (2008) Beyond dirty, dangerous and dull: what everyday people think robots should do. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, New York, pp 25–32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Wasen K (2010) Replacement of highly educated surgical assistants by robot technology in working life: paradigm shift in the service sector. Special issue on: robots for future societies: evaluating social acceptance and societal impact of robots. Int J Soc Robot 2(4) (2010). doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0062-y

  30. Weingart P (2001) Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Velbrueck Wissenschaft, Weilerswist

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weiss A, Igelsböeck J, Calinon S, Billard A, Tscheligi M (2009) Teaching a humanoid: a user study on learning by demonstration with HOAP-3. In: Ro-Man2009: proceedings of the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 147–152

  32. Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Tscheligi M, Yoshida E (2009) Addressing user experience and societal impact in a user study with a humanoid robot. In: AISB2009: proceedings of the symposium on new frontiers in human-robot interaction, pp 150–157

  33. Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2009) The USUS evaluation framework for human-robot interaction. In: AISB2009: proceedings of the symposium on new frontiers in human-robot interaction, pp 158–165

  34. Weiss A, Wurhofer D, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2009) Autonomous vs tele-operated: how people perceive human-robot collaboration with HRP-2. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp 257–258

  35. Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Schwaiger D, Altmaninger M, Buchner R, Tscheligi M (2009) User experience evaluation with a wizard of oz approach: technical and methodological considerations In: Humanoids2009: proceedings of the 9th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoids robotics, pp 303–308

  36. Weiss A, Igelsböck J, Pierro P, Buchner R, Balaguer C, Tscheligi M (2010) User perception of usability aspects in indirect HRI—a chain of translations. In: RO-MAN 2010: proceedings of the 19th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 574–580

  37. Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HCI&Usability Unit, ICT&S Center, University of Salzburg, Sigmund Haffner Gasse 18, 5020, Salzburg, Austria

    Astrid Weiss, Judith Igelsböck, Daniela Wurhofer & Manfred Tscheligi

Authors
  1. Astrid Weiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith Igelsböck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniela Wurhofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manfred Tscheligi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid Weiss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weiss, A., Igelsböck, J., Wurhofer, D. et al. Looking Forward to a “Robotic Society”?. Int J of Soc Robotics 3, 111–123 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0076-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0076-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation