A mixed-method approach to evoke creative and holistic thinking about robots in a home environment
Open accessAbstract
Discovering older adults' perceptions and expectations of domestic care service robots are vital in informing the design and development of new technologies to ensure acceptability and usability. This paper identifies issues that were elicited from older adults using different methods to promote creative thinking about domestic robots at an emotional level, as well as pragmatic level. These included exploring people's ideal embodiment preferences and requirements for a domestic care service robot, and also what embodiments and functional aspects will not be acceptable. We analysed our findings using relevant constructs from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, and Technology Acceptance models. In addition to some already well-established findings, we discovered some surprising aspects concerning interaction, behaviour and appearance and the ability for the robot to fit the relevant context, both physically and conceptually.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In most instances, studies rely on researcher-generated scenarios to anchor discussion on the technology and its proposed use.
“In most instances, these studies rely on researcher-generated scenarios to anchor discussion on the technology and its proposed use (Caleb-Solly et al., 2014).”
From Personal Narratives in Technology Design: The Value of Sharing Older Adults’ Stories in the Design of Social Robots (2021) · cites this paper as Caleb-Solly et al., 2014
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
Assistive Robotics and an Ecology of Elders Living Independently in Their Homes
Forlizzi, J., DiSalvo, C., & Gemperle, F. (2004) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_3 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Graf, B., Reiser, U., Hagele, M., Mauz, K., & Klein, P. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts · doi:10.1109/arso.2009.5587059 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Enjoyment intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Wielinga, B., & Evers, V. (2008) · Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction · doi:10.1145/1349822.1349838 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place
Beer, J. M., Smarr, C.-A., Chen, T. L., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2012) · Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/2157689.2157806 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lee, H. R., Šabanović, S., Chang, W.-L., Nagata, S., Piatt, J., Bennett, C., & Hakken, D. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/2909824.3020237 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Vandemeulebroucke, T., de Casterlé, B. D., & Gastmans, C. (2018) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2017.1286455 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Reframing Assistive Robots to Promote Successful Aging
Lee, H. R., & Riek, L. D. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3203303 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Rethinking the Design of Robotic Pets for Older Adults
Lazar, A., Thompson, H. J., Piper, A. M., & Demiris, G. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems · doi:10.1145/2901790.2901811 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Ostrowski, A. K., Harrington, C. N., Breazeal, C., & Park, H. W. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.716581 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Caleb-Solly, P., Dogramadzi, S., Ellender, D., Fear, T., & Heuvel, H. V. D.
- Affiliations
- University of the West of England (GB)
- Smart Homes (NL)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-03-03
- Pages
- 374-381
- OpenAlex
- W2079123003
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- eprints.uwe.ac.uk
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (publishedVersion)
- UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- older adults, robot embodiment, robot appearance, technology acceptance, UTAUT, technology acceptance model, creative thinking, holistic thinking, family environment, robot usability, robot acceptability, human-robot interaction
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
