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.

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a measure of robot use self-efficacy in healthcare work (RUSH) based on social cognitive theory and the theory of planned behavior. This article provides a briefing on technology-specific selfefficacy and discusses the development, validation and implementation of an instrument that measures care workers' selfefficacy in working with robots. The validity evaluation of the Finnish-language measure was based on representative survey samples gathered in 2016. The respondents included practical and registered nurses, homecare workers, and physiotherapists. A majority of the respondents were female. The full instrument consists of a set of six task-specific selfefficacy items concerning general views of technological skills, confidence in learning robot use, and confidence in guiding others in robot use. Three items were chosen for the shorter version of the measure. The face validity, construct validity, and reliability were established to validate the instruments. Both 3-item and 6-item measures were found to be highly consistent in structure. Respondents with high levels of RUSH also reported more general self-efficacy and interest in technology, on average. A very brief instrument of three items is convenient to include in repeated employee surveys.

Successful implementation of robots in welfare services requires that the staff approves of them as a part of daily work tasks. In this study, we identified psychological and socio-demographic determinants associated with readiness for robotization among professional Finnish care-workers. National survey data were collected from professional care workers (n = 3800) between October and November 2016. Random samples were drawn from the member registers of two Finnish trade unions. The data were analyzed with regression models for respondents with and without firsthand experience with robots. The models explained 34-39% of the variance in the readiness for robotization. The readiness was positively associated with self-efficacy, perceived social norms, interest in technology, and perceived impacts on employment. It was also found that the readiness was less determined by age, gender, profession and job satisfaction among the respondents with firsthand robot experience. Among care workers with no experience with robots, older age and lower job satisfaction predicted a readiness for robotization. Care workers stand out as a distinctive group of potential service robot users, with their high confidence in using new technology and low job satisfaction predicting a higher readiness for robotization. Social norms among care workers emerged as an important factor in the readiness for robotization.

In this research, we investigate user experiences with the Laevo exoskeletons in geriatric work. We introduce two studies where Finnish nurses used exoskeletons and identify the requirements and potential restrictions for using exoskeletons in care context. Our results show that nurses’ intentions to use the exoskeletons were mostly associated with perceived usefulness, ergonomics, and enjoyment of use. Also, social environment issues, such as other people’s reactions, are important considerations. Exoskeleton use has varying requirements depending on where it will be implemented. Thus, the end users’ ideas for the design are crucial in enabling exoskeleton use in different sectors of work.