Cover not available

Article published In: Envisioning Social Robotics: Current challenges and new interdisciplinary methodologies
Edited by Glenda Hannibal and Astrid Weiss
[Interaction Studies 21:1] 2020
► pp. 24–56

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Towards a new scale for assessing attitudes towards social robots

The attitudes towards social robots scale (ASOR)

 | Aarhus University
 | Aarhus University
 | Aarhus University
 | University of Helsinki
 | Aarhus University
 | Aarhus University
Published online: 24 January 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18055.fle
Abstract
Background: The surge in the development of social robots gives rise to an increased need for systematic methods of assessing attitudes towards robots.
Aim: This study presents the development of a questionnaire for assessing attitudinal stance towards social robots: the ASOR.
Methods: The 37-item ASOR questionnaire was developed by a task-force with members from different disciplines. It was founded on theoretical considerations of how social robots could influence five different aspects of relatedness.
Results: Three hundred thirty-nine people responded to the survey. Factor analysis of the ASOR yielded a three-factor solution consisting of a total of 25 items: “ascription of mental capacities”, “ascription of socio-practical capacities”, and “ascription of socio-moral status”. This data was further triangulated with data from interviews (n = 10).
Conclusion: the ASOR allows for assessment of three distinct facets of ascription of capacities to social robots and offers a new type of assessment of attitudes towards social robots. It appeared that ASOR not only assesses ascription of capacities to social robots but it also gauged overall positive attitudes towards social robots.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Methods
    • Development of the attitudes towards social robots scale (ASOR)
    • Procedure
      • Online piloting
      • Focus group
      • Clinical sample
      • Distribution of ASOR to larger sample
      • Qualitative semi-structured research interviews
    • Measures
    • The robot
    • Statistics
      • Preliminary factor analysis
    • Qualitative data
  • Discussion
    • Limitations and future directions
    • Conflict of interest
  • References
References (76)
References
Arras, K. O., & Cerqui, D. (2005). Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000 people survey. Retrieved from [URL]
Atkinson, P. (1992). Understanding ethnographic texts (Vol. 251). Sage Publications, Inc.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bainbridge, W. A., Hart, J. W., Kim, E. S., & Scassellati, B. (2011). The Benefits of Interactions with Physically Present Robots over Video-Displayed Agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(1), 41–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barbour, R. (2008). Doing focus groups. Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baron, N. S. (2004). See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(4), 397–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews learning the craft of qualitative research interviews 3rd Edition. Sage. Brandon, J. and Davies, M. (1979). The Limits of Competence in Social Work: The Assessment of Marginal Students in Social Work Education. British Journal of Social Work, 9(3), 295–347.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinkmann, Svend, & Tanggaard, L. (2010). Kvalitative metoder: en grundbog. Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broadbent, E., Orejana, J. R., Ahn, H. S., Xie, J., Rouse, P., & MacDonald, B. A. (2015). The cost-effectiveness of a robot measuring vital signs in a rural medical practice. 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 577–581. IEEE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, R., Patience, A., Knock, B., Kerse, N., Day, K., & MacDonald, B. A. (2012). Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 31(2), 115–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1988). Meaning and necessity: a study in semantics and modal logic. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daly, C. (2010). An introduction to philosophical methods. Broadview Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Damholdt, Vestergaard C., & Seibt, J. (2019). Testing for ‘Anthropomorphisation’ – A Case for Mixed Methods in HRI. Springer Publishing Co, New York, NY.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Damholdt, Yamazaki R., Hakli, R., Hansen, C. V., Vestergaard, C., & Seibt, J. (2015). Attitudinal Change in Elderly Citizens Toward Social Robots: The Role of Personality Traits and Beliefs About Robot Functionality. Human-Media Interaction, 17011. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M., Woods, S., Koay, K. L., Nehaniv, C. L., Sisbot, A., … Siméon, T. (2006). How may I serve you?: a robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context. Proceeding of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction – HRI ’06, 1721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Werry, I. (2005). What is a robot companion – friend, assistant or butler? 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1192–1197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Derrick, B., & White, P. (2016). Why Welch’s test is Type I error robust. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(1), 30–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3), 177–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2009). Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Intelligent and Ubiquitous Interaction Environments (pp. 39–48). Retrieved from [URL].
Fink, J. (2012). Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot interaction. International Conference on Social Robotics, 199–208. Retrieved from [URL].
Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable. Marketing Bulletin, 66–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Morality takes two: Dyadic morality and mind perception. The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil, 2011, 109–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Retrieved from [URL]
Himma, K. E. (2009). Artificial agency, consciousness, and the criteria for moral agency: What properties must an artificial agent have to be a moral agent? Ethics and Information Technology, 11(1), 19–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, J. A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the Five Factor Model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 511, 78–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahn, P. H., Reichert, A. L., Gary, H. E., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Shen, S., … Gill, B. (2011). The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction – HRI ’11, 1591. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamide, H., Takubo, T., Ohara, K., Mae, Y., & Arai, T. (2014). Impressions of humanoids: the development of a measure for evaluating a humanoid. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(1), 33–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khan, Z. (1998). Attitudes towards intelligent service robots. NADA KTH, Stockholm, 171. Retrieved from [URL]
Kim, J., Lee, H. Y., Candace Christensen, M., & Merighi, J. R. (2017). Technology access and use, and their associations with social engagement among older adults: Do women and men differ? Journals of Gerontology – Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(5), 836–845. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. (2004). Fellow creatures: Kantian ethics and our duties to animals.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krátký, J., McGraw, J. J., Xygalatas, D., Mitkidis, P., & Reddish, P. (2016). It Depends Who Is Watching You: 3-D Agent Cues Increase Fairness. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0148845. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A., Narayan, S., & Smith, W. R. (1996). Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence. New Directions for Evaluation, 1996(70), 29–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuo, I. H., Rabindran, J. M., Broadbent, E., Lee, Y. I., Kerse, N., Stafford, R. M. Q., & MacDonald, B. A. (2009). Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2009. RO-MAN 2009. The 18th IEEE International Symposium On, 214–219. Retrieved from [URL].
Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, K. M., Jung, Y., Kim, J., & Kim, S. R. (2006). Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(10), 962–973. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leung, S.-O. (2011). A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(4), 412–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Louie, W.-Y. G., McColl, D., & Nejat, G. (2014). Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults. Assistive Technology, 26(3), 140–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Melson, G. F., Kahn Jr., P. H., Beck, A., Friedman, B., Roberts, T., Garrett, E., & Gill, B. T. (2009). Children’s behavior toward and understanding of robotic and living dogs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 92–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moser, S. Claus, & Kalton, G. (1972). Survey methods in social investigation (2nd American ed). Retrieved from [URL]
Mutlu, B., Osman, S., Forlizzi, J., Hodgins, J., & Kiesler, S. (2006). Task Structure and User Attributes as Elements of Human-Robot Interaction Design. ROMAN 2006 – The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 74–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(6), 669–678. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nass, C. I., Lombard, M., Henriksen, L., & Steuer, J. (1995). Anthropocentrism and computers. Behaviour & Information Technology, 14(4), 229–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neave, N., Jackson, R., Saxton, T., & Hönekopp, J. (2015). The influence of anthropomorphic tendencies on human hoarding behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 721, 214–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neff, K. D. (2003). The Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Self-Compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Suzuki, T. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. Ai & Society, 20(2), 138–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T., & Kato, K. (2008). Prediction of Human Behavior in Human–Robot Interaction Using Psychological Scales for Anxiety and Negative Attitudes Toward Robots. Robotics, IEEE Transactions On, 24(2), 442–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., & Kato, K. (2006a). Measurement of anxiety toward robots. Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. The 15th IEEE International Symposium On, 372–377. Retrieved from [URL].
(2006b). Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 437–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, 32(3), 396–402.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogawa, K., Nishio, S., Koda, K., Taura, K., Minato, T., Ishii, C. T., & Ishiguro, H. (2011). Telenoid: Tele-presence android for communication. ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 Emerging Technologies, 151. Retrieved from [URL].
Poland, B. D. (2002). Transcription quality. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), From the individual interview to the interview society. SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Public attitudes towards robots. Special Eurobarometer 382. (2012). Retrieved from [URL]
Rocks, C., Jenkins, S., Studley, M., & McGoran, D. (2009). Heart robot: a public engagement project. Interaction Studies, 101, 427–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rodogno. (2015). Attachment and Moral Psychology. In J. Seibt & J. Garsdal (Eds.), Foundational Research on Values, Conflicts, and Intercultural Thought. Ontos Verlag/De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruxton, G. D. (2006). Forum: The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student’s t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Behavioral Ecology, 17(4), 688–690. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, Calif: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schermerhorn, P., Scheutz, M., & Crowell, C. R. (2008). Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males? 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 263–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seibt, J., & Vestergaard, C. (2018). Fair Proxy Communication: Using Social Robots to Modify the Mechanisms of Implicit Social Cognition. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 41, e31827. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simon, S. J., & Peppas, S. C. (2005). Attitudes towards product website design: A study of the effects of gender. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(2), 129–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Singer, P. (1995). Animal liberation. Random House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smedegaard, C. V. (n.d.). Reframing the Role of Novelty within Social HRI: from Noise to Information. In Press, 2019, (14th annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction).
Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 62–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tung, F.-W. (2011). Influence of Gender and Age on the Attitudes of Children towards Humanoid Robots. Human-Computer Interaction. Users and Applications, 637–646. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Introduction to social psychology. Retrieved from [URL]
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who Sees Human? The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., Lankes, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2009). The USUS Evaluation Framework for Human-Robot Interaction.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Złotowski, J., Sumioka, H., Eyssel, F., Nishio, S., Bartneck, C., & Ishiguro, H. (2018). Model of Dual Anthropomorphism: The Relationship Between the Media Equation Effect and Implicit Anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(5), 701–714. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (21)

Cited by 21 other publications

Etzrodt, Katrin & Autumn Edwards
2026. The Epistemic Power of Human-Machine Communication. Human-Machine Communication 12 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Richter, Phillip, Kira Sophie Loos, Josef El Dib, Mara Brandt, Heiko Wersing & Anna-Lisa Vollmer
2026. Companion Proceedings of the 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 741 ff. DOI logo
Istenič, Andreja, Vid Podpečan, Violeta Rosanda & Xuesong Zhai
2025. Social robot radical innovation: capacities and status attributed to the NAO robot by 11 to 12-year-old students and preservice teachers’ perceptions. Cogent Education 12:1 DOI logo
Rosanda, Violeta, Ivan Bratko, Mateja Gačnik, Vid Podpečan & Andreja Istenič
2025. Robot NAO integrated lesson vs. traditional lesson: Measuring learning outcomes on the topic of “societal change” and the mediating effect of students' attitudes. British Journal of Educational Technology 56:1 ► pp. 435 ff. DOI logo
Carradore, Marco, Giovanna Artioli & Annavittoria Sarli
2024. The General Attitudes Towards Robots Scale (GAToRS): A Preliminary Validation of the Italian Version. International Journal of Social Robotics 16:9-10 ► pp. 2001 ff. DOI logo
Chatzoglou, Prodromos D., Vasiliki Lazaraki, Savvas D. Apostolidis & Antonios C. Gasteratos
2024. Factors Affecting Acceptance of Social Robots Among Prospective Users. International Journal of Social Robotics 16:6 ► pp. 1361 ff. DOI logo
Dobrosovestnova, Anna, Tim Reinboth & Astrid Weiss
2024. Towards an Integrative Framework for Robot Personality Research. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 13:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Dobrosovestnova, Anna, Ralf Vetter & Astrid Weiss
2024. Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 402 ff. DOI logo
Istenič, Andreja, Liliya Latypova, Violeta Rosanda, Žiga Turk, Roza Valeeva & Xuesong Zhai
2024. Reluctance to Authenticity-Imbued Social Robots as Child-Interaction Partners. Education Sciences 14:4 ► pp. 390 ff. DOI logo
Niewrzol, Daniel B. & Thomas Ostermann
2024. Development and Validation of the Attitudes towards Social Robots Scale. Healthcare 12:3 ► pp. 286 ff. DOI logo
Somashekarappa, Vidya, Christine Howes & Asad Sayeed
2024. 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), ► pp. 128 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Taenyun & Hayeon Song
2023. “I Believe AI Can Learn from the Error. Or Can It Not?”: The Effects of Implicit Theories on Trust Repair of the Intelligent Agent. International Journal of Social Robotics 15:1 ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Schlicht, Tobias
2023. Conclusion and New Challenges. In Philosophy of Social Cognition [Palgrave Philosophy Today, ], ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo
Allan, D. D., Andrew J. Vonasch & Christoph Bartneck
2022. The Doors of Social Robot Perception: The Influence of Implicit Self-theories. International Journal of Social Robotics 14:1 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Erel, Hadas, Elior Carsenti & Oren Zuckerman
2022. 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ► pp. 342 ff. DOI logo
Weber-Guskar, Eva & Tobias Schlicht
2022. Soziale Interaktion mit Systemen Künstlicher Intelligenz: kognitionstheoretische Grundlagen und normative Fragen. In Soziales Lernen, Beziehung und Mentalisieren, ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Erel, Hadas, Yoav Cohen, Klil Shafrir, Sara Daniela Levy, Idan Dov Vidra, Tzachi Shem Tov & Oren Zuckerman
2021. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 312 ff. DOI logo
Etzrodt, Katrin
2021. The Ontological Classification of Conversational Agents. In Chatbot Research and Design [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12604], ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
Harris, Jamie & Jacy Reese Anthis
2021. The Moral Consideration of Artificial Entities: A Literature Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 27:4 DOI logo
Rosenthal-von der Pütten, Astrid & Anna M. H. Abrams
2021. Empirical Methods in the Social Science for Researching Socially Interactive Agents. In The Handbook on Socially Interactive Agents, ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Velentza, Anna-Maria, Nikolaos Fachantidis & Ioannis Lefkos
2021. 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 236 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue