Cited by 94Social Robot Interaction and HRITechnology Use by Older AdultsHuman-Animal Interaction Studies

Rethinking the Design of Robotic Pets for Older Adults

Open access
Lazar, Amanda, Thompson, Hilaire J., Piper, Anne Marie, Demiris, George·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems

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.

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 · 10.1145/2901790.2901811

Cites

55 of 55 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Masahiro Mori (Translated by Karl F. MacDorman and Norri Kageki). 2012. The Uncanny Valley. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 19, 2: 98-100.
  2. Selma Šabanović. 2010. Robots in Society, Society in Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 2, 4: 439-450.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lazar, A., Thompson, H. J., Piper, A. M., & Demiris, G.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-06-04
Pages
1034-1046
OpenAlex
W2412708160
Cited by
94
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
17.99
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Designing Interactive Systems Conference (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (DGE-0718124)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
Keywords
pet robots, companion robots, older adults, population aging, loneliness, social isolation, robot ethics, human-robot relationships, reciprocity, robot design, emotional support

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