Article published In: Social Cues in Robot Interaction, Trust and Acceptance
Edited by Alessandra Rossi, Kheng Lee Koay, Silvia Moros, Patrick Holthaus and Marcus Scheunemann
[Interaction Studies 20:3] 2019
► pp. 393–425
Children’s acceptance of social robots
A narrative review of the research 2000–2017
Published online: 18 November 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18071.jon
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18071.jon
Abstract
Social robots progressively enter children’s lives, but little is known about children’s acceptance of social
robots and its antecedents. To fill this research gap, this narrative review surveyed 34 articles on child-robot interaction
published between 2000 and 2017. We focused on robot, user, and interaction characteristics as potential antecedents of children’s
intentional and behavioral social robot acceptance. In general, children readily accept robots. However, we found that social,
adaptive robot behavior, children’s sex and age, as well as frequency of the interaction seem to affect acceptance. Additionally,
we found various theoretical and methodological shortcomings in the field. The review concludes with recommendations and
directions for future research on children’s acceptance of social robots.
Article outline
- Antecedents of robot acceptance
- Characteristics of the robot
- Characteristics of the user
- Characteristics of the interaction
- Interactions between antecedents
- Methodological characteristics
- General methodological characteristics
- CRI-specific methodological characteristics
- Method
- Results
- The effect of robot characteristics on acceptance
- The effect of user characteristics on acceptance
- The effect of interaction characteristics on acceptance
- Interactions between antecedents
- Methodological characteristics
- Discussion
- Antecedents of children’s social robot acceptance
- Interaction between antecedents
- The influence of methodological characteristics
- Conclusion and future directions
- Acknowledgments
References
References (98)
Abe, K., Iwasaki, A., Nakamura, T., Nagai, T., Yokoyama, A., Shimotomai, T., … Omori, T. (2012). Playmate robots that can act according to a child’s mental state. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 4660–4667).
Al-Taee, M. A., Kapoor, R., Garrett, C., & Choudhary, P. (2016). Acceptability of robot assistant in management of type 1 diabetes in children. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 18(9), 551–554.
Bagozzi, R. (2007). The legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254.
Banthia, V., Maddahi, Y., May, M., Blakley, D., Chang, Z., Gbur, A., … Sepehri, N. (2016). Development of a graphical user interface for a socially interactive robot: A case study evaluation. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (pp. 1–8).
Barco, A., Van Straten, C. L., De Jong, C., Peter, J., & Kühne, R. (2018). Current technical and practical impediments to research on social robots. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Robots in Therapy and Education (pp. 19–20). Retrieved from [URL]
Baxter, P., Ashurst, E., Read, R., Kennedy, J., & Belpaeme, T. (2017). Robot education peers in a situated primary school study: Personalisation promotes child learning. PLoS ONE, 12(5), 1–23.
Baxter, P., Kennedy, J., Senft, E., Lemaignan, S., & Belpaeme, T. (2016). From characterising three years of HRI to methodology and reporting recommendations. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 391–398).
Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Understanding robot acceptance (Report No. HFA-TR-1103). Retrieved from Georgia Institute of Technology website: [URL]
Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., Greeff, J. De, Kennedy, J., Read, R., Looije, R., … Zelati, M. C. (2013). Child-robot interaction: Perspectives and challenges. In G. Herrmann, M. J. Pearson, A. Lenz, P. Bremner, A. Spiers, & U. Leonards (Eds.), International Conference on Social Robotics: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 452–459).
Beran, T. N., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Kuzyk, R., Fior, M., & Nugent, S. (2011). Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child-robot interaction. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 69(7–8), 539–550.
Bethel, C. L., & Murphy, R. R. (2010). Review of human studies methods in HRI and recommendations. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 347–359.
Blanson Henkemans, O. A., Bierman, B. P. B., Janssen, J., Looije, R., Neerincx, M. A., van Dooren, M. M. M., … Huisman, S. D. (2017). Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1061, 63–76.
Breazeal, C., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., & Kory, J. M. (2016). Young children treat robots as informants. Topics in Cognitive Science, 81, 481–491.
Broadbent, E. (2017). Interactions with robots: The truths we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 681, 627–652.
Budgen, D., & Brereton, P. (2006). Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 1051–1052).
Burleson, B. R. (2010). The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The Handbook of Communication Science (2nd ed., pp. 145–164).
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 141, 365–376.
Cameron, D., Fernando, S., Collins, E., Millings, A., Moore, R. K., Sharkey, A., … Prescott, T. (2015). Presence of life-like robot expressions influences children’s enjoyment of human-robot interactions in the field. In M. Salem, A. Weiss, P. Baxter, & K. Dautenhahn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (Vol. 21, pp. 36–41).
Carter, D. B., & Levy, G. D. (1988). Cognitive aspects of early sex-role development: The influence of gender schemas on preschoolers’ memories and preferences for sex-typed toys and activities. Child Development, 59(3), 782–792.
Cherney, I. D., & London, K. (2006). Gender-linked differences in the toys, television shows, computer games, and outdoor activities of 5- to 13-year-old children. Sex Roles, 54(9–10), 717–726.
Cole, M., Cole, S. R., & Lightfoot, C. (2005). The development of children (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for emperically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation).
(1989). Perceived usefulness, rerceived ease of use, and user acceptance of social robots. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
De Graaf, M. M. A., & Ben Allouch, S. (2013). Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(12), 1476–1486.
De Graaf, M. M. A., Ben Allouch, S., & Klamer, T. (2015). Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Computers in Human Behavior, 431, 1–14.
De Graaf, M. M. A., Ben Allouch, S., & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2016). Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes. Interaction Studies, 17(3), 461–491.
(2017a). A phased framework for long-term user acceptance of interactive technology in domestic environments. New Media & Society, 146144481772726.
(2017b). Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 224–233).
(2019). Why would I use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human-Computer Interaction, 34(2), 115–173.
De Haas, M., Mois Arayo, A., Barakova, E., Haselager, W., & Smeekens, I. (2016). The effect of a semi-autonomous robot on children. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Systems (pp. 376–381).
Díaz, M., Nuño, N., Saez-Pons, J., Pardo, D. E., & Angulo, C. (2011). Building up child-robot relationship for therapeutic purposes: From initial attraction towards long-term social engagement. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition and Workshops (Vol. 271, pp. 927–932).
Dinet, J., & Vivian, R. (2014). Exploratory investigation of attitudes towards assistive robots for future users. Le Travail Humain, 77(2), 105–125.
Eyssel, F. (2017). An experimental psychological perspective on social robotics. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 871, 363–371.
Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Bobinger, S., De Ruiter, L., & Hegel, F. (2012). “If you sound like me, you must be more human.” In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 125–126).
Ezer, N. (2008). Is a robot an appliance, teammate, or friend? Age-related differences in expectations of and attitudes towards personal home-based robots (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from [URL]
Fernaeus, Y., Håkansson, M., Jacobsson, M., & Ljungblad, S. (2010). How do you play with a robot toy animal? In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 39–48).
Fernández-Baena, A., Boldú, R., Albo-Canals, J., & Miralles, D. (2015). Interaction between Vleo and Pleo, a virtual social character and a social robot. In Proceedings of the 24th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 694–699).
Ferraz, M., Câmara, A., & O’Neill, A. (2016). Increasing children’s physical activity levels through biosymtic robotic devices. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (no. 2).
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.
Gomes, P. F., Sardinha, A., Segura, E. M., Cramer, H., & Paiva, A. (2014). Migration between two embodiments of an artificial pet. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 11(1), 1450001.
Guneysu, A., & Arnrich, B. (2017). Socially assistive child-robot interaction in physical exercise coaching. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 670–675).
Hashimoto, T., Kato, N., & Kobayashi, H. (2011). Development of educational system with the android robot SAYA and evaluation. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 8(3), 51–61.
Heerink, M. (2011). Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 147–148).
Heerink, M., Kröse, B. J. A., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. J. (2008). The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents, 2(2), 33–40.
(2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. London, UK: Routledge.
International Federation of Robotics. (2017). Executive Summary WR Service Robots. Retrieved from [URL]
Kahn, P. H., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., & Gill, B. T. (2012). “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303–314.
Kahn, P. H., Gary, H. E., & Shen, S. (2013). Children’s social relationships with current and near-future robots. Child Development Perspectives, 7(1), 32–37.
Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 61–84.
Kanda, T., Shimada, M., & Koizumi, S. (2012). Children learning with a social robot. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 351–358).
Kȩdzierski, J., Muszyński, R., Zoll, C., Oleksy, A., & Frontkiewicz, M. (2013). EMYS-Emotive head of a social robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(2), 237–249.
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews (Technical report Keele University TR/SE-0401 and NICTA 0400011T.1). Retrieved from: [URL]
Koay, K. L., Syrdal, D. S., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Living with robots: Investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human-robot interaction study. In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 564–569).
Kose-Bagci, H., Ferrari, E., Dautenhahn, K., Syrdal, D. S., & Nehaniv, C. L. (2009). Effects of embodiment and gestures on social interaction in drumming games with a humanoid robot. Advanced Robotics, 23(14), 1951–1996.
Kriz, S., Ferro, T. D., Damera, P., & Porter, J. R. (2010). Fictional robots as a data source in HRI research: Exploring the link between science fiction and interactional expectations. In Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 458–463).
Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Oleari, E., Baroni, I., Kiefer, B., Zelati, M. C., Pozzi, C., & Sanna, A. (2014). Effects of off-activity talk in human-robot interaction with diabetic children. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 649–654).
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.
Leite, I., & Lehman, J. F. (2016). The robot who knew too much: Toward understanding the privacy/personalization trade-off in child-robot conversation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 379–387).
Looije, R., Neerincx, M. A., & Hindriks, K. V. (2017). Specifying and testing the design rationale of social robots for behavior change in children. Cognitive Systems Research, 431, 250–265.
Mavridis, N. (2015). A review of verbal and non-verbal human-robot interactive communication. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 631, 22–35.
Michaelis, J. E., & Mutlu, B. (2017). Someone to read with: Design of and experiences with an in-home learning companion robot for reading. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 301–312).
Miller, C. L. (1987). Qualitative differences among gender-stereotyped toys: Implications for cognitive and social development in girls and boys. Sex Roles, 16(9–10), 473–487.
Minato, T., Shimada, M., Ishiguro, H., & Itakura, S. (2004). Development of an Android Robot for Studying Human-Robot Interaction. In B. Orchard, C. Yang, & M. Ali (Eds.), Innovations in Applied Artificial Intelligence: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 424–434).
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., … Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1–6.
Nalin, M., Baroni, I., Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Canamero, L., Lewis, M., Beck, A., … Sanna, A. (2012). Children’s adaptation in multi-session interaction with a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 351–357).
Peter, J., Kühne, R., Barco, A., De Jong, C., & Van Straten, C. L. (2019). Asking today the crucial questions of tomorrow: Social robots and the Internet of Toys. In G. Mascheroni & D. Holloway (Eds.), The Internet of Toys. Practices, Affordances and the Political Economy of Children’s Smart Play (pp. 25–46).
Pulido, J. C., González, J. C., Suárez-Mejías, C., Bandera, A., Bustos, P., & Fernández, F. (2017). Evaluating the child–robot interaction of the NAOTherapist platform in pediatric rehabilitation. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(3), 343–358.
Ribi, F. N., Yokoyama, A., & Turner, D. C. (2008). Comparison of children’s behavior toward Sony’s robotic dog AIBO and a real dog. A pilot study. Anthrozoös, 21(3), 245–256.
Ros, R., Oleari, E., Pozzi, C., Sacchitelli, F., Baranzini, D., Bagherzadhalimi, A., … Demiris, Y. (2016). A motivational approach to support healthy habits in long-term child–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(5), 599–617.
Sabelli, A. M., & Kanda, T. (2016). Robovie as a mascot: A qualitative study for long-term presence of robots in a shopping mall. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 211–221.
Saint-Aimé, S., Grandgeorge, M., Le Pévédic, B., & Duhaut, D. (2011). Evaluation of EmI interaction with non-disabled children in nursery school using the wizard of Oz technique. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Biometrics (pp. 1147–1152).
Saint-Aimé, S., Le Pévédic, B., & Duhaut, D. (2011). Preliminary study to evaluate Emi emotional interaction with two young children. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (pp. 1309–1314).
Sandygulova, A., & O’Hare, G. M. P. (2016). Investigating the impact of gender segregation within observational pretend play interaction. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 399–406).
Serholt, S., Basedow, C. A., Barendregt, W., & Obaid, M. (2014). Comparing a humanoid tutor to a human tutor delivering an instructional task to children. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (pp. 1134–1141).
Shibata, T., Wada, K., Ikeda, Y., & Sabanovic, S. (2009). Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Advanced Robotics, 23(4), 443–458.
Shin, D.-H., & Choo, H. (2011). Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics: Social presence in human–robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 12(3), 430–460.
Shiomi, M., Abe, K., Pei, Y., Ikeda, N., & Nagai, T. (2016). “I’m scared”: Little children reject robots. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (pp. 245–247).
Simmons, R., & Knight, H. (2017). Keep on dancing: Effects of expressive motion mimicry. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 720–727).
Simon, B. (2001). Wissenmedien im Bildungssektor. Eine Akzeptanzuntersuchung an Hochschulen (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from [URL]
Sun, Y., & Jeyaraj, A. (2013). Information technology adoption and continuance: A longitudinal study of individuals’ behavioral intentions. Information and Management, 50(7), 457–465.
Sundar, S. S., Waddell, T. F., & Jung, E. H. (2016). The Hollywood robot syndrome: Media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. In International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 343–350).
Sung, J. Y., Christensen, H. I., & Grinter, R. E. (2009). Robots in the wild: Understanding long-term use. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 45–52).
Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 656–669.
Tozadore, D. C., Pinto, A. H. M., Ranieri, C. M., Batista, M. R., & Romero, R. A. F. (2017). Tablets and humanoid robots as engaging platforms for teaching languages. In Proceedings of the Latin American Robotics Symposium (pp. 1–6).
Tozadore, D., Pinto, A., Romero, R., & Trovato, G. (2017). Wizard of Oz vs autonomous: Children’s perception changes according to robot’s operation condition. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 664–669).
Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged in: How media attract and affect youth. Journal of Children and Media.
Van Straten, C. L., Peter, J., & Kühne, R. (2019). Child-robot relationship formation: A narrative review of empirical research. International Journal of Social Robotics.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wainer, J., Feil-Seifer, D. J., Shell, D. A., & Mataric, M. J. (2006). The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 117–122).
Walters, M. L., Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., & Koay, K. L. (2008). Avoiding the uncanny valley: Robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Autonomous Robots, 24(2), 159–178.
Weibel, D., Stricker, D., Wissmath, B., & Mast, F. W. (2010). How socially relevant visual characteristics of avatars influence impression formation. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(1), 37–43.
Westlund, J. M. K., Martinez, M., Archie, M., Das, M., & Breazeal, C. (2016). Effects of framing a robot as a social agent or as a machine on children’s social behavior. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 688–693).
Wigdor, N., De Greeff, J., Looije, R., & Neerincx, M. A. (2016). How to improve human-robot interaction with conversational fillers. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 219–224).
Cited by (21)
Cited by 21 other publications
Krzic, Ana Sovic, Petra Mazar & Dalia Kager
Severson, Rachel L., Jochen Peter, Takayuki Kanda, Jordy Kaufman & Brian Scassellati
Sharan, Navya N., Jochen Peter, Jeroen S. Lemmens, Rinaldo Kühne, Chiara de Jong & Alex Barco
Xia, Danni, Yun Li, Shijia Mao & Zhengyan Fan
Kiuchi, Keita, Kouyou Otsu & Yugo Hayashi
Pan, Xin-Yun, Xuan-Yi Bi, Yan-Ning Nong, Xu-Chun Ye, Yan Yan, Jing Shang, Yi-Min Zhou & Yu-Zhe Yao
Cocchella, Francesca, Giulia Pusceddu, Giulia Belgiovine, Michela Bogliolo, Linda Lastrico, Maura Casadio, Francesco Rea & Alessandra Sciutti
Kühne, Rinaldo & Jochen Peter
Rodríguez-Hidalgo, Carmina & Nairbis Sibrian
Wang, Jianmin, Yongkang Chen, Siguang Huo, Liya Mai & Fusheng Jia
Alhmiedat, Tareq & Mohammed Alotaibi
de Jong, Chiara, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne & Alex Barco
De Jong, Chiara, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne & Alex Barco
Gao, Jing & Chi Lin
Ríos Rincón, Adriana Maria, William Ricardo Rodríguez-Dueñas, Daniel Alejandro Quiroga Torres, Andrés Felipe Bohórquez & Antonio Miguel-Cruz
Zhao, Zhao & Rhonda McEwen
de Jong, Chiara, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kuhne, Caroline van Straten & Alex Barco
Kitt, Elizabeth R., Molly K. Crossman, Angela Matijczak, Gillian B. Burns & Alan E. Kazdin
Neerincx, Anouk, Thirza Hiwat & Maartje de Graaf
Barco, Alex, Chiara de Jong, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne & Caroline L. van Straten
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.
