Robots today are working in both industrial and service sectors. Robots have evolved from one-function automatons to intelligent systems of versatile features, and the new generation of service robots are sharing same space and tasks with humans. The aim of this systematic literature review was to examine how the social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields has been studied and what kinds of attitudes the studies have discovered regarding robots as workers. The data were collected in October 2016 from four major bibliographic databases. Preliminary search results included 336 research articles from which 42 were selected to the final research through inclusion criteria. Of the studies, 69 percent concerned robots working in health and social services. Positive attitudes occurred more frequently in studies exposing participants to robots. Robots were considered appropriate for different work tasks. Telepresence robots were highly approved by health care staff. The criticism was directed to decreasing human contact and unnecessary deployment of new technology. Our results imply that attitudes toward robots are positive in many fields of work. Yet there is a need for validated measures and nationally representative data that would help us to further our understanding of social acceptance of robots in work.

No abstract

As many post-industrial societies are rapidly ageing, intelligent and innovative solutions from the technology side are sought to ensure that welfare services continue in the future. Both social and nonsocial assistive robots are considered as solutions. To ensure the successful implementation of new technology, it is essential to understand the factors that influence the user's decision to accept or reject technology. The aim of this study was to understand the association between robot use self-efficacy and acceptance of robots. Acceptance of humanoid, pet, lifting, and telepresence robots were studied among care work staff (N = 3800). Analyses were based on linear regression analysis. The results showed that robot use self-efficacy is associated with the acceptance to use humanoid, pet, and telepresence robots. The strongest connection was found between robot use self-efficacy and the functional and social acceptance of a humanoid robot. General self-efficacy was not associated with any of the robot types studied in the final models. Furthermore, no interaction effect was found between general selfefficacy and robot use self-efficacy. The results underline that psychological processes on acceptance of robots vary between different types of robots. The results imply that robot use self-efficacy is important for understanding acceptance and implementation of robots. The explanatory power of self-efficacy is better when it is tied to a specific matter such as the use of care robots.

AimTo answer the question: ‘How prepared healthcare professionals are to take robots as their assistants in terms of experience and acceptance?’BackgroundThe ageing population, increasing care needs and shortage of healthcare professionals pose major challenges in Western societies. Special service robots designed for care tasks have been introduced as one solution to these problems.DesignA correlative designMethodsEurobarometer data (N = 969) and survey data of nurses and other healthcare professionals (N = 3800) were used to assess the relationship between robot acceptance and experiences with robots while controlling for the respondents’ age, gender, occupational status and managerial experience.ResultsHealthcare professionals had less experience with robots and more negative attitudes towards them than the general population. However, in healthcare, robot assistance was welcomed for certain tasks. These regarded, for example, heavy lifting and logistics. Previous experiences with robots were consistently correlated with robot acceptance.

Robots are increasingly being used to assist with various tasks ranging from industrial manufacturing to welfare services. This study analysed how robot acceptance at work (RAW) varies between individual and national attributes in EU 27. Eurobarometer surveys collected in 2012 (n = 26,751) and 2014 (n = 27,801) were used as data. Background factors also included country-specific data drawn from the World Bank DataBank. The study is guided by the technology acceptance model and change readiness perspective explaining robot acceptance in terms of individual and cultural attributes. Multilevel studies analysing cultural differences in technological change are exceptionally rare. The multilevel analysis of RAW performed herein accounted for individual and national factors using fixed and random intercepts in a nested data structure. Individuallevel factors explained RAW better than national-level factors. Particularly, personal experiences with robots at work or elsewhere were associated with higher acceptance. At a national level, the technology orientation of the country explained RAW better than the relative risk of jobs being automated. Despite the countries' differences, personal characteristics and experiences with robots are decisive for RAW. Experiences, however, are better enabled in countries open to innovations. The findings are discussed in terms of possible mechanisms through which the technological orientation and social acceptance of robots may be related.