Public perceptions of care robots

Abstract

Purpose The Republic of Korea has experienced the world's fastest rate of population aging. This rapid increase in the number of older adults, particularly the oldest old—those aged 85 and above—coupled with a shrinking caregiver workforce, necessitates innovative solutions. In response, the Korean government launched a major research and development (R&D) initiative in 2019 specifically aimed at developing care robots to assist with transferring, preventing bedsores, toileting, and feeding. Additionally, mass media has widely reported on the promising future of care robots, often depicting them as humanoid. However, little is known about how the general public defines and perceives care robots. This study aims to bridge this gap by exploring public perceptions of care robots.

Method Data for this study was collected through an online survey administered to a sample of 1,668 participants in South Korea. The sample was stratified by age group, gender, and region to ensure representativeness. Participants were asked about their knowledge of care robots, with the following response options: (a) I know it well, (b) I have heard the word, and (c) I do not know it at all. Participants were also asked to select the definition of care robots that most closely aligned with their understandings from the following options: (a) a robot that assists with one specific activity (e.g., transferring, eating, toileting) in diverse care environments; (b) a robot capable of assisting with various activities in diverse care environments; (c) a humanoid robot designed to replace care aids; and (d) something else. Participants who chose the last option were invited to provide their own definition of care robots.

Results and Discussion The survey results regarding perceived knowledge level showed that over half (52.1%) of participants reported having heard of care robots, while nearly four in ten (39.7%) reported not knowing them at all. Only 8.3% of participants reported being very knowledgeable about care robots. In terms of participants’ definition of care robots, about one out of three (35.6%) study participants reported they are humanoid robots designed to replace care aids. However, 40.5% viewed them as robots capable of assisting with various activities, and 21.9% perceived them as assisting with only one specific activity. Thirty-two participants selected "something else" when defining care robots, and twelve indicated they had no idea. Notably, five participants described care robots as companions for conversation. The distribution of definitions of care robots across perceived knowledge levels showed that the group reporting no knowledge was more likely to view care robots as humanoid robots, while the group that reported being very knowledgeable were more likely to define care robots as robots assisting with only one specific activity.  A chi-square test of independence revealed a statistically significant associated between the two variables: ꭓ², (4, N = 1636) = 49.95, p < .001. Multinomial logistic regression revealed a statistically significant association between education level and perceived knowledge of care robots, even after controlling for age and gender. Participants with higher education were more likely to report being very knowledgeable about care robots or having heard of them, compared to those who reported no knowledge at all. Age also emerged as a significant factor in defining care robots. Younger participants were more likely to view them as robots capable of assisting with various activities, rather than just one specific activity. The findings suggest that the majority of the general population lacks confidence in their knowledge of care robots, and also, they view care robots in a wide spectrum of capabilities. To bridge this gap and ensure human-centered development addressing South Korea's growing caregiving needs, public communication and open discussions are essential. These discussions should focus on defining care robots, outlining the ethical considerations and potential limitations of their development, and fostering responsible implementation.