Cited by 134Social Robot Interaction and HRITechnology Use by Older AdultsAI in Service Interactions

Attitudinal and Intentional Acceptance of Domestic Robots by Younger and Older Adults

Open access
Ezer, Neta, Fisk, Arthur D., Rogers, Wendy A.·2009·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Abstract

A study was conducted to examine the expectations that younger and older individuals have about domestic robots and how these expectations relate to robot acceptance. In a questionnaire participants were asked to imagine a robot in their home and to indicate how much items representing technology, social partner, and teammate acceptance matched their robot. There were additional questions about how useful and easy to use they thought their robot would be. The dependent variables were attitudinal and intentional acceptance. The analysis of the responses of 117 older adults (aged 65-86) and 60 younger adults (aged 18-25) indicated that individuals thought of robots foremost as performance-directed machines, less so as social devices, and least as unproductive entities. The robustness of the Technology Acceptance Model to robot acceptance was supported. Technology experience accounted for the variance in robot acceptance due to age.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_5

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Participants recommended that the robot will incrementally introduce new features and be able to support and encourage older adults to use the technology as an installation method.

    “• Option 4: Robot will incrementally introduce new features and be able to support and encourage older adults to use the technology (Dewar and Dutton, 1986; Green et al., 1995; Ezer et al., 2009).”

    From Personal Narratives in Technology Design: The Value of Sharing Older Adults’ Stories in the Design of Social Robots (2021) · cites this paper as Ezer et al., 2009

    The Introduction says incremental innovations are generally accepted more readily than disruptive technologies, and the Discussion links ease of use to acceptance of domestic robots. Neither section reports participants recommending gradual feature introduction or a robot-led method of supporting older adults during installation. The cited paper supports the rationale for the option, not the specific recommendation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2009
Volume
5615
Pages
39-48
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W1698088155
Cited by
134
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.25
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P01AG017211)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
home robots, robot acceptance, technology acceptance, older adults, young adults, age differences, technology experience, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, social robots, technology acceptance model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review