Dit onderzoek draagt bij aan de gebruikersacceptatie van psychotherapeutische sociale robots door een theoretische en empirische analyse te voorzien van de constructen die hierop een invloed hebben. Daarnaast werden ook de moderatoren die dit beïnvloeden in rekening gebracht. Ons onderzoek levert bijgevolg empirisch bewijs van de constructen die de gebruiksintentie van psychotherapeutische sociale robots significant beïnvloeden en de moderatoren die een effect hebben op deze relaties. Deze resultaten helpen een begrip te verwezenlijken in zaken die belangrijk zijn om de acceptatie van psychotherapeutische robots te bevorderen. Daardoor kunnen ze de ontwikkelaars van psychotherapeutische robots begeleiden bij het ontwikkelen van dergelijke sociale robots. Zo impliceren de resultaten dat ontwerpers rekening moeten houden met de constructen prestatieverwachting, sociale invloed en vertrouwen, ongeacht de doelgroep die ze wensen te bereiken.
Zoals elk empirisch onderzoek is ook deze uiteenzetting onderhevig aan beperkingen. Deze moeten dan ook erkend worden. Zo zijn de respondenten van de enquête enkel en alleen Vlamingen, aangezien de vragenlijst uitsluitend in het Nederlands werd gepubliceerd. Het is dus niet zeker dat een veralgemening van de resultaten naar andere geografische gebieden mogelijk is. Daarnaast zijn de resultaten gebaseerd op de antwoorden van 253 respondenten. Dit is een voldoende grote steekproef om de betrouwbaarheid van de resultaten te garanderen, alhoewel een uitbreiding aangeraden is om de betrouwbaarheid te vergroten. Vervolgens is het vroege stadium waar psychotherapeutische robots zich vandaag de dag in bevinden ook een beperking van dit onderzoek. De resultaten tonen dan ook aan dat slechts 1,2% van de bevraagde respondenten reeds een eerste ervaring heeft gehad met een dergelijke robot. Hierdoor is de moderator ervaring en de voorspeller gebruiksgedrag niet onderzocht. Dit zijn desalniettemin belangrijke gegevens om de gebruikersacceptatie na te gaan (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2012). Het gebrek aan ervaring met deze technologie bemoeilijkt dan ook een theoretische benadering. Daarom zou het complementeren van deze theoretische studie met een meer praktijkgerichte benadering de betrouwbaarheid ten goede kunnen komen.
Toekomstig onderzoek kan meerdere pistes bewandelen. Zo is het om te beginnen mogelijk om te focussen op andere geografische gebieden. Een tweede optie bestaat erin om een meer gediversifieerde
steekproef uit te voeren. Zo kunnen onderzoekers zich bijvoorbeeld richten op een grotere dataset waar de respondenten afkomstig zijn van verschillende geografische gebieden. Dit zou de veralgemeenbaarheid van de resultaten bevorderen. Ten derde kan toekomstig onderzoek ook een andere methodologie toepassen. Zo kan een longitudinaal onderzoek inzicht geven in de evolutie van de gebruikersacceptatie van psychotherapeutische robots. Dit is uitermate relevant gezien de beginfase waarin dit soort robots zich bevindt. Daarnaast is zoals reeds vermeld een meer praktijkgerichtere benadering noodzakelijk. Een experiment op basis van een post-taak vragenlijst is dan ook aangeraden. Zo kan er bijvoorbeeld een groep zijn die effectief werkt met een psychotherapeutisch sociale robot vooraleer de vragenlijst in te vullen. Een controlegroep kan dan fungeren om een vergelijking te maken. In dergelijke studies is het ook mogelijk om ervaring als moderator op te nemen in het onderzoeksmodel. Dit kan potentieel interessante inzichten opleveren. Het gebruik van de psychotherapeutische sociale robot in dit soort experimenten is echter niet vrijwillig. Situaties waar dit wel het geval is zouden ook onderzocht kunnen worden.
Deel 7 Bibliografie
Abdi, J., Al-Hindawi, A., Ng, T., & Vizcaychipi, M. P. (2018). Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open, 8(2), e018815. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018815
Allison, P. (2019, 27 november). When Can You Safely Ignore Multicollinearity? | Statistical Horizons. Geraadpleegd van https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity
Alaiad, A., & Zhou, L. (2014). The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(11), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.07.003
Artificial Intelligence (AI). (z.d.). Geraadpleegd op 1 april 2020, van https://www.gartner.com/en/information- technology/glossary/artificial-intelligence
Azeem, M. M., Iqbal, J., Toivanen, P., & Samad, A. (2012). Emotions in Robots. Communications in Computer and
Information Science, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28962-0_15
Baillie, L., Breazeal, C., Denman, P., Foster, M. E., Fischer, K., & Cauchard, J. R. (2019). The Challenges of Working on Social Robots that Collaborate with People. Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3299022
Bartneck, C., & Forlizzi, J. (2004). A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction. RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No.04TH8759).
https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2004.1374827
Batty, M. (2020). How disruptive are new urban technologies? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 47(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320902574
Beck, A., Canamero, L., & Bard, K. A. (2010). Towards an Affect Space for robots to display emotional body language. 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2010.5598649
Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369. https://doi.org/10.2307/248684
Botha, A. P. (2019). A mind model for intelligent machine innovation using future thinking principles. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(8), 1250–1264. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-01-2018-0021
Brady, M. (1985). Artificial intelligence and robotics. Artificial Intelligence, 26(1), 79–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(85)90013-x
Breazeal, C., & Scassellati, B. (2002). Robots that imitate humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 481–487.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(02)02016-8
Breazeal, C. (2003). A motivational system for regulating human-robot interaction. AAAI. Geraadpleegd van
https://www.aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/1998/AAAI98-008.pdf
Breazeal, C. (2004). Social Interactions in HRI: The Robot View. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 34(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmcc.2004.826268
Breazeal, C. (2004). Function Meets Style: Insights From Emotion Theory Applied to HRI. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 34(2), 187–194.
https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmcc.2004.826270
Breazeal, C. B., & Brooks, R. B. (2005). Robot emotion: A functional perspective. Who needs emotions. Geraadpleegd van http://sistemas-humano-computacionais.wdfiles.com/local--files/capitulo%3Amodelagem-e-simulacao-de- humanos/Breazeal-Brooks-03.pdf
Breazeal, C. (2009). Role of expressive behaviour for robots that learn from people. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3527–3538. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0157
Breazeal, C. (2017). Social Robots. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’17. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020258
Broadbent, E. (2017). Interactions With Robots: The Truths We Reveal About Ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 627–652. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-043958
Broekens, J. B., Heerink, M. H., & Rosendal, H. R. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. . Gerontechnology.
Brown, J. D. (2009). Open-Response Items in Questionnaires. Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics, 200–219.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230239517_10
Cabanac, M. (2002). What is emotion? Behavioural Processes, 60(2), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376- 6357(02)00078-5
Cabibihan, J.-J., Javed, H., Ang, M., Jr., & Aljunied, S. M. (2013). Why Robots? A Survey on the Roles and Benefits of Social Robots in the Therapy of Children with Autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(4), 593–618.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0202-2
Chao, C., Cakmak, M., & Thomaz, A. L. (2010). Transparent active learning for robots. 2010 5th ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2010.5453178
Chen, C., Garrod, O. G. B., Zhan, J., Beskow, J., Schyns, P. G., & Jack, R. E. (2018). Reverse Engineering Psychologically Valid Facial Expressions of Emotion into Social Robots. 2018 13th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG 2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/fg.2018.00072
Conboy, K., Fitzgerald, G., & Mathiassen, L. (2012). Qualitative methods research in information systems: motivations, themes, and contributions. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 113–118.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.57
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
Craig, J. J. (2005). Introduction to Robotics. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Verenigde Staten: Prentice Hall.
Crumpton, J., & Bethel, C. (2014). Conveying emotion in robotic speech: Lessons learned. The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2014.6926265
Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 679–704.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2004
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007
Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 177–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00374-3
Duffy, B. R. (2006). Fundamental Issues in Social Robotics. International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE), 31– 36. Geraadpleegd van http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.111.3293&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., Ellsworth, P., Goldstein, A. P., & Krasner, L. (2013). Emotion in the Human Face. Maarssen, Nederland: Elsevier Gezondheidszorg.
Ertel, W. (2018). Introduction to Artificial Intelligence (2de editie). New York, Verenigde Staten: Springer Publishing.
euRobotics AISBL. 2013. Robotics 2020: strategic research agenda for robotics in Europe. euRobotics Coord. Action
Draft 0v42, 7th Framework Progr., Eur. Comm., Brussels.
https://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/robotics-ppp-roadmap_en.pdf
Fernandes, F. E., Guanci Yang, Do, H. M., & Sheng, W. (2016). Detection of privacy-sensitive situations for social robots in smart homes. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), 727– 732. https://doi.org/10.1109/coase.2016.7743474
Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Thousand Oaks, Canada: SAGE Publications.
Fiske, A., Henningsen, P., & Buyx, A. (2019). Your Robot Therapist Will See You Now: Ethical Implications of Embodied Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychotherapy. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(5), e13216. https://doi.org/10.2196/13216
Fitzpatrick, K. K., Darcy, A., & Vierhile, M. (2017). Delivering Cognitive Behavior Therapy to Young Adults With Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety Using a Fully Automated Conversational Agent (Woebot): A Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mental Health, 4(2), e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7785
FlasińSki, M. (2016). Introduction to Artificial Intelligence (1ste editie). New York, Verenigde Staten: Springer Publishing.
Fong, T. F., Thorpe, C. T., & Baur, C. B. (2003). Collaboration, Dialogue, and Human-Robot Interaction. Springer, 255–266. Geraadpleegd van https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F3-540-36460-9.pdf
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00372-x
Foster, M. E. (2019). Natural language generation for social robotics: opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 374(1771), 20180027.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0027
François, D. F., Powell, S. P., & Dautenhahn, K. D. (2009). A long-term study of children with autism playing with a robotic pet: Taking inspirations from non-directive play therapy to encourage children’s proactivity and initiative- taking. Interaction Studies, 10(3), 324–373. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.10.3.04fra
Frith, C. (2009). Role of facial expressions in social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3453–3458. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0142
Fulmer, R., Joerin, A., Gentile, B., Lakerink, L., & Rauws, M. (2018). Using Psychological Artificial Intelligence (Tess) to Relieve Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mental Health, 5(4), e64. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.9782
Gallego-Perez, J., Lohse, M., & Evers, V. (2013). Robots to motivate elderly people: Present and future challenges. 2013 IEEE RO-MAN, 685–690. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2013.6628392
Gaudiello, I., Zibetti, E., Lefort, S., Chetouani, M., & Ivaldi, S. (2016). Trust as indicator of robot functional and social acceptance. An experimental study on user conformation to iCub answers. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.057
Ge, S. S., Wang, C., & Hang, C. C. (2008). Facial expression imitation in human robot interaction. RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2008.4600668
Goodrich, M. A., & Schultz, A. C. (2007). Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey. Foundations and Trends® in Human-
Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203–275. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000005
Grace-Martin, K. (2019, 28 februari). Can Likert Scale Data ever be Continuous? Geraadpleegd van
https://www.theanalysisfactor.com/can-likert-scale-data-ever-be-continuous/
Gross, J. J. (2013). Handbook of Emotion Regulation, Second Edition. New York, America: Guilford Publications.
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). A Meta- Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
He, W., Li, Z., & Chen, C. L. P. (2017). A survey of human-centered intelligent robots: issues and challenges. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 4(4), 602–609. https://doi.org/10.1109/jas.2017.7510604
Heerink, M. (2011). Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction - HRI ’11, 147–148.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957704
Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2009). Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 528–533. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2009.5326320
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2010). Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5
Hegel, F., Krach, S., Kircher, T., Wrede, B., & Sagerer, G. (2008). Understanding social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism. RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2008.4600728
Hoffman, G. (2019). Evaluating Fluency in Human–Robot Collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine
Systems, 49(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1109/thms.2019.2904558
Holz, T., Dragone, M., & O’Hare, G. M. P. (2008). Where Robots and Virtual Agents Meet. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0002-2
Qualtrics XM. (z.d.). How to Determine the Correct Survey Sample Size. Geraadpleegd van
https://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/determine-sample-size/
Inkster, B., Sarda, S., & Subramanian, V. (2018). An Empathy-Driven, Conversational Artificial Intelligence Agent (Wysa) for Digital Mental Well-Being: Real-World Data Evaluation Mixed-Methods Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(11), e12106. https://doi.org/10.2196/12106
International Federation of Robotics. (2019). Executive Summary World Robotics 2019 Industrial Robots.
Geraadpleegd van
https://ifr.org/downloads/press2018/Executive%20Summary%20WR%202019%20Industrial%20Robots.pdf
James, J., Watson, C. I., & MacDonald, B. (2018). Artificial Empathy in Social Robots: An analysis of Emotions in Speech. 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).
https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2018.8525652
Jelle Saldien. (2010). The Huggable Social Robot Probo [Videobestand]. Geraadpleegd van
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQEUF8J10NY&fbclid=IwAR2BOIIQwDElTGgMl1cZnzHadw4S7X71IBZc3 XNM3MG6-pgDVVDo0UpdpHM
Joerin, A., Rauws, M., & Ackerman, M. L. (2019). Psychological Artificial Intelligence Service, Tess: Delivering On- demand Support to Patients and Their Caregivers: Technical Report. Cureus, 1. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.3972
Johnson, D. R., & Creech, J. C. (1983). Ordinal Measures in Multiple Indicator Models: A Simulation Study of Categorization Error. American Sociological Review, 48(3), 398. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095231
Jung, Y., & Lee, K. M. (2004). Effects of Physical Embodiment on Social Presence of Social Robots. Proceedings of
Presence, 80–87. Geraadpleegd van
https://astro.temple.edu/~lombard/ISPR/Proceedings/2004/Jung%20and%20Lee.pdf
Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods for Evaluating Computer Information Systems. Health Informatics, 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30329-4_2
Kędzierski, 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0183-1
Kidd, C. D., & Breazeal, C. (2008). Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction. 2008
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 3230–3235.
https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2008.4651113
Kirby, R., Forlizzi, J., & Simmons, R. (2010). Affective social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 58(3), 322– 332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2009.09.015
Korn, O., Bieber, G., & Fron, C. (2018). Perspectives on Social Robots. Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive
Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference on - PETRA ’18.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3197768.3197774
Kühl, N., Goutier, M., Hirt, R., & Satzger, G. (2019). Machine Learning in Artificial Intelligence: Towards a Common Understanding. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2019.630
Kretzschmar, K., Tyroll, H., Pavarini, G., Manzini, A., & Singh, I. (2019). Can Your Phone Be Your Therapist? Young People’s Ethical Perspectives on the Use of Fully Automated Conversational Agents (Chatbots) in Mental Health Support. Biomedical Informatics Insights, 11, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178222619829083
Kreutzer, R. T., & Sirrenberg, M. (2020). Understanding Artificial Intelligence. Management for Professionals.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25271-7
Lee, A. S., & Liebenau, J. (1997). Information Systems and Qualitative Research. Information Systems and
Qualitative Research, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35309-8_1
Lee, K. M., Peng, W., Jin, S.-A., & Yan, C. (2006). Can Robots Manifest Personality?: An Empirical Test of Personality Recognition, Social Responses, and Social Presence in Human–Robot Interaction. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 754–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00318.x
Lee, M. K. L., Tang, K. P. T., Forlizzi, J. F., & Kiesler, S. K. (2011). Understanding users! Perception of privacy in human-robot interaction. IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 181–182. Geraadpleegd van https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/628128
Leite, I., Martinho, C., Pereira, A., & Paiva, A. (2009). As Time goes by: Long-term evaluation of social presence in robotic companions. RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 669–674. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2009.5326256
Leite, I., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2013). Social Robots for Long-Term Interaction: A Survey. International Journal
of Social Robotics, 5(2), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y
Lemaignan, S., Warnier, M., Sisbot, E. A., Clodic, A., & Alami, R. (2017). Artificial cognition for social human– robot interaction: An implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 247, 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2016.07.002
Leung, T. F. L., Wong, G. W. K. W., Ko, F. W. S. K., Lam, C. W. K. L., & Fok, T. F. F. (2005). Clinical and atopic parameters and airway inflammatory markers in childhood asthma: a factor analysis. Thorax, 60(10), 822–826.
https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2004.039321
Levenson, R. W. (2011). Basic Emotion Questions. Emotion Review, 3(4), 379–386.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911410743
Li, J., & Chignell, M. (2010). Communication of Emotion in Social Robots through Simple Head and Arm Movements. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0071-x
Lin, P. L., Abney, K. A., & Bekey, G. A. B. (2011). Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Lisetti, C. L., Brown, S. M., Alvarez, K., & Marpaung, A. H. (2004). A Social Informatics Approach to Human–Robot Interaction With a Service Social Robot. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 34(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmcc.2004.826278
Lutz, C., & Tamó-Larrieux, A. (2020). The Robot Privacy Paradox: Understanding How Privacy Concerns Shape Intentions to Use Social Robots. Human-Machine Communication, 1, 87–111. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.6
Mazzei, D., Zaraki, A., Lazzeri, N., & De Rossi, D. (2014). Recognition and expression of emotions by a symbiotic android head. 2014 IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots.
https://doi.org/10.1109/humanoids.2014.7041349
McArthur, J. W. M., & Sachs, J. D. S. (2001). The Growth Competitiveness Index: Measuring Technological Advancement and the Stages of Development. Center for International Development at Harvard University.
McColl, D., & Nejat, G. (2014). Recognizing Emotional Body Language Displayed by a Human-like Social Robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0226-7
McColl, D., Hong, A., Hatakeyama, N., Nejat, G., & Benhabib, B. (2015). A Survey of Autonomous Human Affect Detection Methods for Social Robots Engaged in Natural HRI. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 82(1), 101– 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-015-0259-2
McKerrow, P. J. (1986). Robotics, an academic discipline? Robotics, 2(3), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167- 8493(86)90035-5
Meet Woebot! (2017). [Videobestand]. YouTube. Geraadpleegd van
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGh8dNkpZWk&feature=emb_title
Mehlmann, G., Häring, M., Janowski, K., Baur, T., Gebhard, P., & André, E. (2014). Exploring a Model of Gaze for Grounding in Multimodal HRI. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI ’14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2663204.2663275
Michaud, F., Pirjanian, P., Audet, J., & Létourneau, D. (2000). Artificial Emotion and Social Robotics. Distributed
Autonomous Robotic Systems 4, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-67919-6_12
Moravec, H. P. (2019, 27 november). Robot | Definition, History, Uses, Types, & Facts. Geraadpleegd van
https://www.britannica.com/technology/robot-technology
Mumm, J., & Mutlu, B. (2011). Human-robot proxemics. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-
robot interaction - HRI ’11. https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957786
Myers, M. D. “Qualitative Research in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (21:2), June 1997, pp. 241-242. MISQ Discovery, archival version, June 1997, http://www.misq.org/supplements/. Association for Information Systems (AISWorld) Section on Qualitative Research in Information Systems, updated version, last modified: January 15, 2020 www.qual.auckland.ac.nz
Meyers, M. D., & Avison, A. D. (2002). Qualitative research in information systems: a reader. SAGE Publications.
Geraadpleegd van
https://books.google.be/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=Oe9jkjrdFuoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Qualitative+research+in+infor mation+systems&ots=QGu2ZoXGaj&sig=rjW-
Newman, M. G., Szkodny, L. E., Llera, S. J., & Przeworski, A. (2011). A review of technology-assisted self-help and minimal contact therapies for anxiety and depression: Is human contact necessary for therapeutic efficacy? Clinical Psychology Review, 31(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.09.008
Niku, S. B. (2020). Introduction to Robotics: Analysis, Control, Applications (3de editie). Hoboken, NJ, Verenigde Staten: Wiley.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
Paiva, A. P., Leite, I. L., & Ribeiro, T. R. (2014). Emotion modeling for social robots. The Oxford Handbook of
Affective Computing. Geraadpleegd van
https://books.google.be/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=w6siBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA296&dq=Emotion+Modelling+for +Social+Robots+&ots=HLkoyQ1qQE&sig=XRoVEoNAv8wZF2OTbF4gnAwgyKI#v=onepage&q=Emotion%20 Modelling%20for%20Social%20Robots&f=false
Persson, P., Laaksolahti, J., & Löonnqvist, P. (2002). Understanding Social Intelligence. Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47373-9_2
Ophir, D., & Zheng, J. (2015). A sociable robot as a psychotherapist. 2015 10th International Workshop on Robot Motion and Control (RoMoCo), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1109/romoco.2015.7219735
Reddy, R. R. (2006). Robotics and Intelligent Systems in Support of Society. IEEE Computer Society.
Riek, L. D. (2016). Robotics Technology in Mental Health Care. Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care, 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-420248-1.00008-8
Rios-Martinez, J., Spalanzani, A., & Laugier, C. (2014). From Proxemics Theory to Socially-Aware Navigation: A Survey. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0251-1
Sabanovic, S., Bennett, C. C., Wan-Ling Chang, & Huber, L. (2013). PARO robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/icorr.2013.6650427