Volume 20, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381



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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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. InProceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp.4660–4667). 10.1109/IROS.2012.6386037
    https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2012.6386037 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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. 10.1089/dia.2015.0428
    https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2015.0428 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. 10.17705/1jais.00122
    https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00122 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. InProceedings of the 7th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (pp.1–8). 10.1109/IEMCON.2016.7746294
    https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMCON.2016.7746294 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barco, A., Van Straten, C. L., De Jong, C., Peter, J., & Kühne, R.
    (2018) Current technical and practical impediments to research on social robots. InProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Robots in Therapy and Education (pp.19–20). Retrieved fromhttps://newfriends2018.online/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ProceedingsNF18-1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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. 10.1371/journal.pone.0178126
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178126 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baxter, P., Kennedy, J., Senft, E., Lemaignan, S., & Belpaeme, T.
    (2016) From characterising three years of HRI to methodology and reporting recommendations. InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.391–398). 10.1109/HRI.2016.7451777
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451777 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A.
    (2011) Understanding robot acceptance (Report No. HFA-TR-1103). Retrieved fromGeorgia Institute of Technology website: https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/39672/HFA-TR-1103-RobotAcceptance.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., Greeff, J. De, Kennedy, J., Read, R., Looije, R., … Zelati, M. C.
    (2013) Child-robot interaction: Perspectives and challenges. InG. 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). 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑02675‑6_45
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_45 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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. 10.1007/s12369‑010‑0064‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0064-9 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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, 106, 63–76. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Breazeal, C., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., & Kory, J. M.
    (2016) Young children treat robots as informants. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 481–491. 10.1111/tops.12192
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12192 [Google Scholar]
  14. Broadbent, E.
    (2017) Interactions with robots: The truths we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 627–652. 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑010416‑043958
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958 [Google Scholar]
  15. Budgen, D., & Brereton, P.
    (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp.1051–1052). 10.1080/00378941.1935.10832973
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00378941.1935.10832973 [Google Scholar]
  16. Burleson, B. R.
    (2010) The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. InC. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The Handbook of Communication Science (2nd ed., pp.145–164). 10.4135/9781412982818.n9
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412982818.n9 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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, 14, 365–376. 10.1038/nrn3475
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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. InM. Salem, A. Weiss, P. Baxter, & K. Dautenhahn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (Vol.2, pp.36–41). 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. 10.2307/1130576
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1130576 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. 10.1007/s11199‑006‑9037‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9037-8 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cole, M., Cole, S. R., & Lightfoot, C.
    (2005) The development of children (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Davis, F. D.
    (1986) A technology acceptance model for emperically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation). 10.1016/S0378‑7206(01)00143‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1989) Perceived usefulness, rerceived ease of use, and user acceptance of social robots. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. 10.2307/249008
    https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. 10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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, 43, 1–14. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.030 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.1075/is.17.3.08deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.08deg [Google Scholar]
  27. (2017a) A phased framework for long-term user acceptance of interactive technology in domestic environments. New Media & Society, 146144481772726. 10.1177/1461444817727264
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817727264 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2017b) Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.224–233). 10.1145/2909824.3020236
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020236 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2019) Why would I use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human-Computer Interaction, 34(2), 115–173. doi:  10.1080/07370024.2017.1312406
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1312406 [Google Scholar]
  30. De Haas, M., Mois Arayo, A., Barakova, E., Haselager, W., & Smeekens, I.
    (2016) The effect of a semi-autonomous robot on children. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Systems (pp.376–381). 10.1109/IS.2016.7737448
    https://doi.org/10.1109/IS.2016.7737448 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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. InProceedings of the International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition and Workshops (Vol.27, pp.927–932). 10.1109/FG.2011.5771375
    https://doi.org/10.1109/FG.2011.5771375 [Google Scholar]
  32. Dinet, J., & Vivian, R.
    (2014) Exploratory investigation of attitudes towards assistive robots for future users. Le Travail Humain, 77(2), 105–125. 10.3917/th.772.0105
    https://doi.org/10.3917/th.772.0105 [Google Scholar]
  33. Eyssel, F.
    (2017) An experimental psychological perspective on social robotics. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 87, 363–371. 10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.029
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.08.029 [Google Scholar]
  34. Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Bobinger, S., De Ruiter, L., & Hegel, F.
    (2012) “If you sound like me, you must be more human.” InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.125–126). 10.1145/2157689.2157717
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157717 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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 fromhdl.handle.net/1853/26567
  36. Fernaeus, Y., Håkansson, M., Jacobsson, M., & Ljungblad, S.
    (2010) How do you play with a robot toy animal?InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp.39–48). 10.1145/1810543.1810549
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810549 [Google Scholar]
  37. Fernández-Baena, A., Boldú, R., Albo-Canals, J., & Miralles, D.
    (2015) Interaction between Vleo and Pleo, a virtual social character and a social robot. InProceedings of the 24th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.694–699). 10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333597
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333597 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ferraz, M., Câmara, A., & O’Neill, A.
    (2016) Increasing children’s physical activity levels through biosymtic robotic devices. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (no.2). 10.1145/3001773.3001781
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3001773.3001781 [Google Scholar]
  39. Fisher, R. J.
    (1993) Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315. 10.1086/209351
    https://doi.org/10.1086/209351 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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. 10.1142/S0219843614500017
    https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219843614500017 [Google Scholar]
  41. Guneysu, A., & Arnrich, B.
    (2017) Socially assistive child-robot interaction in physical exercise coaching. InProceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.670–675). 10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172375
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172375 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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. 10.5772/10667
    https://doi.org/10.5772/10667 [Google Scholar]
  43. Heerink, M.
    (2011) Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.147–148). 10.1145/1957656.1957704
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957704 [Google Scholar]
  44. 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. 10.14198/JoPha.2008.2.2.05
    https://doi.org/10.14198/JoPha.2008.2.2.05 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375. 10.1007/s12369‑010‑0068‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1037/10034‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000 [Google Scholar]
  47. International Federation of Robotics
    International Federation of Robotics (2017) Executive Summary WR Service Robots. Retrieved fromhttps://ifr.org/downloads/press/Executive_Summary_WR_Service_Robots_2017%09_1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 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. 10.1037/a0027033
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027033 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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. 10.1111/cdep.12011
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12011 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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. 10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_4 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kanda, T., Shimada, M., & Koizumi, S.
    (2012) Children learning with a social robot. InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.351–358). 10.1145/2157689.2157809
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157809 [Google Scholar]
  52. 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. 10.1007/s12369‑013‑0183‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0183-1 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kitchenham, B.
    (2004) Procedures for performing systematic reviews (Technical report Keele University TR/SE-0401 and NICTA 0400011T.1). Retrieved from: www.it.hiof.no/~haraldh/misc/2016-08-22-smat/Kitchenham-Systematic-Review-2004.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 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. InProceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.564–569). 10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415149
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415149 [Google Scholar]
  55. 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. 10.1163/016918609X12518783330360
    https://doi.org/10.1163/016918609X12518783330360 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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. InProceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.458–463). 10.1109/ROMAN.2010.5598620
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2010.5598620 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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. InProceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.649–654). 10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926326
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926326 [Google Scholar]
  58. 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. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  59. Leite, I., & Lehman, J. F.
    (2016) The robot who knew too much: Toward understanding the privacy/personalization trade-off in child-robot conversation. InProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp.379–387). 10.1145/2930674.2930687
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930687 [Google Scholar]
  60. 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, 43, 250–265. 10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mavridis, N.
    (2015) A review of verbal and non-verbal human-robot interactive communication. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 63, 22–35. 10.1016/j.robot.2014.09.031
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2014.09.031 [Google Scholar]
  62. Michaelis, J. E., & Mutlu, B.
    (2017) Someone to read with: Design of and experiences with an in-home learning companion robot for reading. InProceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.301–312). 10.1145/3025453.3025499
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025499 [Google Scholar]
  63. 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. 10.1007/BF00292482
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292482 [Google Scholar]
  64. Minato, T., Shimada, M., Ishiguro, H., & Itakura, S.
    (2004) Development of an Android Robot for Studying Human-Robot Interaction. InB. Orchard, C. Yang, & M. Ali (Eds.), Innovations in Applied Artificial Intelligence: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp.424–434). 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑24677‑0_44
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24677-0_44 [Google Scholar]
  65. 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. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [Google Scholar]
  66. 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. InProceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.351–357). 10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343778
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343778 [Google Scholar]
  67. 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. InG. Mascheroni & D. Holloway (Eds.), The Internet of Toys. Practices, Affordances and the Political Economy of Children’s Smart Play (pp.25–46). 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑10898‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10898-4 [Google Scholar]
  68. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H.
    (2006) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. 10.5860/CHOICE.43‑5664
    https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.43-5664 [Google Scholar]
  69. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B.
    (2008) The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 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. 10.1007/s12369‑017‑0402‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0402-2 [Google Scholar]
  71. 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. 10.2752/175303708X332053
    https://doi.org/10.2752/175303708X332053 [Google Scholar]
  72. 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. 10.1007/s12369‑016‑0356‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0356-9 [Google Scholar]
  73. 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. 10.1007/s12369‑015‑0332‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0332-9 [Google Scholar]
  74. 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. InProceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Biometrics (pp.1147–1152). 10.1109/ROBIO.2011.6181442
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBIO.2011.6181442 [Google Scholar]
  75. Saint-Aimé, S., Le Pévédic, B., & Duhaut, D.
    (2011) Preliminary study to evaluate Emi emotional interaction with two young children. InProceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (pp.1309–1314). 10.1109/ICMA.2011.5985851
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMA.2011.5985851 [Google Scholar]
  76. Sandygulova, A., & O’Hare, G. M. P.
    (2016) Investigating the impact of gender segregation within observational pretend play interaction. InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.399–406). 10.1109/HRI.2016.7451778
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451778 [Google Scholar]
  77. Serholt, S., Basedow, C. A., Barendregt, W., & Obaid, M.
    (2014) Comparing a humanoid tutor to a human tutor delivering an instructional task to children. InProceedings of the 14th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (pp.1134–1141). 10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2014.7041511
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2014.7041511 [Google Scholar]
  78. 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. 10.1163/156855309X408826
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156855309X408826 [Google Scholar]
  79. 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. 10.1075/is.12.3.04shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.12.3.04shi [Google Scholar]
  80. Shiomi, M., Abe, K., Pei, Y., Ikeda, N., & Nagai, T.
    (2016) “I’m scared”: Little children reject robots. InProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (pp.245–247). 10.1145/2974804.2980493
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2974804.2980493 [Google Scholar]
  81. Simmons, R., & Knight, H.
    (2017) Keep on dancing: Effects of expressive motion mimicry. InProceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.720–727). 10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172382
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172382 [Google Scholar]
  82. Simon, B.
    (2001) Wissenmedien im Bildungssektor. Eine Akzeptanzuntersuchung an Hochschulen (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromepub.wu.ac.at/1869/1/document.pdf
  83. Sun, Y., & Jeyaraj, A.
    (2013) Information technology adoption and continuance: A longitudinal study of individuals’ behavioral intentions. Information and Management, 50(7), 457–465. 10.1016/j.im.2013.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  84. 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. InInternational Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.343–350). 10.1109/HRI.2016.7451771
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451771 [Google Scholar]
  85. Sung, J. Y., Christensen, H. I., & Grinter, R. E.
    (2009) Robots in the wild: Understanding long-term use. InProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.45–52). 10.1145/1514095.1514106
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514106 [Google Scholar]
  86. 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. 10.1037/0022‑3514.79.4.656
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.656 [Google Scholar]
  87. 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. InProceedings of the Latin American Robotics Symposium (pp.1–6). 10.1109/SBR‑LARS‑R.2017.8215290
    https://doi.org/10.1109/SBR-LARS-R.2017.8215290 [Google Scholar]
  88. Tozadore, D., Pinto, A., Romero, R., & Trovato, G.
    (2017) Wizard of Oz vs autonomous: Children’s perception changes according to robot’s operation condition. InProceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.664–669). 10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172374
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2017.8172374 [Google Scholar]
  89. Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T.
    (2017) Plugged in: How media attract and affect youth. Journal of Children and Media. 10.1080/17482798.2017.1341116
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2017.1341116 [Google Scholar]
  90. Van Straten, C. L., Peter, J., & Kühne, R.
    (2019) Child-robot relationship formation: A narrative review of empirical research. International Journal of Social Robotics. doi:  10.1007/s12369‑019‑00569‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00569-0 [Google Scholar]
  91. 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. 10.2307/30036540
    https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wainer, J., Feil-Seifer, D. J., Shell, D. A., & Mataric, M. J.
    (2006) The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. InProceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.117–122). 10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314404
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2006.314404 [Google Scholar]
  93. 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. 10.1007/s10514‑007‑9058‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-007-9058-3 [Google Scholar]
  94. 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. 10.1027/1864‑1105/a000005
    https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000005 [Google Scholar]
  95. 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. InProceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.688–693). 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745193
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745193 [Google Scholar]
  96. Wigdor, N., De Greeff, J., Looije, R., & Neerincx, M. A.
    (2016) How to improve human-robot interaction with conversational fillers. InProceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.219–224). 10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745134
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745134 [Google Scholar]
  97. Wiles, J., Worthy, P., Hensby, K., Boden, M., Heath, S., Pounds, P., … Weigel, J.
    (2016) Social cardboard: Pretotyping a social ethnodroid in the wild. InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.531–532). 10.1109/HRI.2016.7451841
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451841 [Google Scholar]
  98. Woods, S., Dautenhahn, K., & Schulz, J.
    (2004) The design space of robots: Investigating children’s views. InProceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp.47–52). 10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374728
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2004.1374728 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error