Religiosity and Attitudes towards Robots: Results from a Global Survey
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2024.022Keywords
human-robot interaction, attitudes towards robots, robophilia, robophobia, demographics, innovative personalityAbstract
Religion is one lens in which people understand the world around them and interpret the world around them. However, it is unclear whether religion has an impact upon attitudes towards robots around the world. In this article, the authors investigate how an individual’s religiosity impacts upon perceptions of robots. The article investigates how an individual’s religiosity impacts attitudes towards robots, using data from a large-scale global survey of attitudes towards robots (N=1263). In order to investigate how religion impacts upon such perceptions, cluster, factor and regression analyses were used for data analysis. The findings illustrate that there are discernible clusters of individuals exhibiting different levels of religiosity and that these clusters have different perceptions of robots, showing as hypothesized, that more religious individuals are more likely to be robophobic than robophilic. The relationship between religiosity and attitudes towards robots is negative: less religious people show more positive attitudes towards robots. While there is clear indication that there is a relationship between religiosity and attitudes towards robots, religiosity does not have a particularly strong impact upon perceptions of robots. The analysis of the data illustrates that there are factors more clearly associated with perceptions of robots, meaning that while religiosity may have some impact on perceptions of robots, that there are more important attitudes and other factors that should be taken into consideration to encourage users to use robots in various service environments. In addition, in this particular research, there seems to be no notable relationship between perceptions of robots and demographics of individuals, illustrating that the age, gender, wealth, and education of an individual may not play a strong role in shaping perceptions of robots in service industries.
References
Allum, Nick, Sibley, Elissa, Sturgis, Patrick, and Paul Stoneman. 2014. “Religious beliefs, knowledge about science and attitudes towards medical genetics.” Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 23(7): 833–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513492485.
Alnajjar, Fady, Bartneck, Christoph, Baxter, Paul, Belpaeme, Tony, Cappuccio, Massimiliano, Di Dio, Cinzia, Eyssel, Friederike, Handke, Jurgen, Mubin, Omar, Obaid, Mohammad, and Natalia Reich-Stiebert. 2021. “Robots in Edu cation: An Introduction to High-Tech Social Agents, Intelligent Tutors, and Curricular Tools.” Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003142706.
Bartneck, Christoph, Suzuki, Ttomohiro, Kanda, Takayuki, and Tatsuya Nomura. 2007. “The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots.” AI & Society 21(1): 217–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7.
Bechar, Avital. 2021. “Agricultural robotics for precision agriculture tasks: concepts and principles.” In Innovation in Agricultural Robotics for Precision Agriculture: A Roadmap for Integrating Robots in Precision Agriculture, 17–30. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77036-5_2.
Brossard, Dominique, Scheufele, Dietram A., Kim, Eunkyung, and Bruce V.
Lewenstein. 2009. “Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 546–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507087304.
Chuah, Stephanie Hui-Wen, Jitanugoon, Siriprapha, Puntha, Pittinun, and Eugene Cheng-Xi Aw. 2022. “You don’t have to tip the human waiters anymore, but Unveiling factors that influence consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium for robotic restaurants.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 34(10): 3553–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2021-1023.
De Graaf, Maartje M.a., and Somaya Ben Allouch. 2013. “Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61(12): 1476–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007.
Desai, Jaydev, Patel, Rajni, Ferreira, Antoine and Sunil Agrawal, eds. 2018. Encyclopedia of Medical Robotics. Singapore: World Scientific.
Ferreira, Maria Isabel Aldinhas, and Sarah R. Fletcher, eds. 2022. The 21st Century Industrial Robot: When Tools Became Collaborators. Cham: Springer.
Giger, Jean-Christophe., Moura, Daniel, Almeida, Nuno, & Nuno Piçarra. 2017. “Attitudes towards social robots: The role of gender, belief in human nature uniqueness, religiousness and interest in science fiction.” In Proceedings of II International Congress on Interdisciplinarity in Social and Human Sciences, 11–12th May 2017, 509–514. Faro (Portugal): University of Algarve. Retrieved from https://sapientia.ualg.pt/handle/10400.1/10086.
Green, Brian Patrick. 2018. “Ethical Reflections on Artificial Intelligence.” Scientia et Fides [online] 6(2): 9–31. Accessed March 16, 2023. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2018.015.
Hudson, John 2019. The Robot Revolution: Understanding the Social and Economic Impact. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hudson, John, Orviska, Marta, and Jan Hunady. 2017. “People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the elderly. International Journal of Social Robotics 9(2): 199–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0384-5.
Hwang, Jinsoo, Park, Seulgi, and Insin Kim. 2020. “Understanding motivated consumer innovativeness in the context of a robotic restaurant: The moderating role of product knowledge.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 44: 272–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.06.003.
Hyun, Youyung, Hlee, Sunyoung, Park, Jaehyun, and Younghoon Chang. 2022. “Discovering meaningful engagement through interaction between customers and service robots.” The Service Industries Journal 42(13–14): 973–1000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2088738.
Ivanov, Stanislav Hristov. 2021. “Robonomics: The rise of the automated economy.” ROBONOMICS: The Journal of the Automated Economy 1, 11. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3804403.
Ivanov, Stanislav Hristov, Kuyumdzhiev, Mihail, and Craig Webster. 2020. “Automation fears: drivers and solutions.” Technology in Society 63: 101431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101431.
Ivanov, Stanislav Hristov, and Craig Webster. 2019a. Perceived appropriateness and intention to use service robots in tourism. In Pesonen, J. & Neidhardt, J. (Eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2019, Proceedings of the International Conference in Nicosia, Cyprus, 30.01-01.02.2019, pp. 237–248. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-05940-8_19.
Ivanov, Stanislav Hristov, and Craig Webster, eds. 2019b. Robots, Artificial Intelligence and Service Automation in Travel, Tourism and Hospitality. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787566873.
Ivanov, Stanislav Hristov, Webster, Craig, and Aleksandra Garenko. 2018. “Young Russian adults’ attitudes towards the potential use of robots in hotels.” Technology in Society 55: 24–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.06.004.
Ivanov, Stanislav Hristov, Webster, Craig, and Peyman Seyyedi. 2018. “Consumers’ attitudes towards the introduction of robots in accommodation establishments.” Tourism 63(3): 302–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-022-00517-5.
Katz, James E., and Daniel Halpern. 2014. “Attitudes towards robots suitability for various jobs as affected robot appearance.“ Behaviour & Information Technology 33(9): 941–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.783115.
Koverola, Mika, Kunnari, Anton, Sundvall, Jukka, and Michael Laakasuo. 2022. “General attitudes towards robots scale (GAToRS): A new instrument for social surveys.” International Journal of Social Robotics 14(7): 1559–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00880-3.
Li, Yi, and Chongli Wang. 2022. “Effect of customer’s perception on service robot acceptance.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 46(4): 1241–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12755.
Lutz, Christoph, and Aurelia Tamó-Larrieux. 2020. “The robot privacy paradox: Understanding how privacy concerns shape intentions to use social robots.” Human-Machine Communication 1: 87–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.6.
Ma, Junzhao, Tojib, Dewi, and Yelena Tsarenko. 2022. “Sex Robots: Are We Ready for Them? An Exploration of the Psychological Mechanisms Underlying People’s Receptiveness of Sex Robots.” Journal of Business Ethics 178: 1091–1107. DOI: https://doi-org.proxy.bsu.edu/10.1007/s10551-022-05059-4.
Modliński, Artur, Emilian Gwiaździński, and Małgorzata Karpińska-Krakowiak. 2022. “The effects of religiosity and gender on attitudes and trust toward autonomous vehicles.” The Journal of High Technology Management Research 33(1): 100426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2022.100426.
Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan and Charles L. Colby. 2015. “An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: TRI 2.0.” Journal of Service Research 18(1): 59–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730.
Rutjens, Bastiaan T., Sutton, Robbie M., and Romy van der Lee. 2018. “Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44(3): 384–405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741314.
Scheufele, Dietram A., Elizabeth A. Corley, Tsung-jen Shih, Kajsa E. Dalrymple, and Shirley S. Ho. 2009. “Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States.” Nature Nanotech 4: 91–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.361.
Schwitzgebel, Eric. 2023. “The Full Rights Dilemma for AI Systems of Debatable Moral Personhood.” Robonomics: The Journal of the Automated Economy 4: 32. https://journal.robonomics.science/index.php/rj/article/view/32.
Simon, Bernd., and Hilmar Grabow. 2014. “To be respected and to respect: The challenge of mutual respect in intergroup relations.” British Journal of Social Psychology 53(1): 39–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12019.
Tigard, Daniel. 2023. “On Respect for Robots.” Robonomics: The Journal of the Automated Economy 4: 37. https://journal.robonomics.science/index.php/rj/article/view/37.
Tussyadiah, Iis. P., Zach, Florian J., and Jianxi Wang. 2017. “Attitudes Toward Autonomous on Demand Mobility System: The Case of Self-Driving Taxi.” In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017. Proceedings of the International Conference in Rome, Italy, January 24–26, 2017, edited by R. Schegg, and B. Strangl, 755–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51168-9_54.
Webster, Craig. 2021. “Demography as a Driver of Robonomics.” Robonomics: The Journal of the Automated Economy 1: 12. Retrieved f rom https://journal.robonomics.science/index.php/rj/article/view/12.
Wiedmann, Klaus-Peter, Nadine Hennigs, Dieter Varelmann, and Marc-Oliver Reeh 2010. “Determinants of consumers’ perceived trust in IT-ecosystems.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 5(2): 137–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762010000200009.
Xie, Heng, David, Alsius, Mamun, Md Rasel Al, Prybutok, Victor R., and Anna Sidorova. 2022. “The formation of initial trust by potential passengers of selfdriving taxis.” Journal of Decision Systems 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2021.2023258.
Xu, Qianli, Jamie S. L. Ng, Odelia Y. Tan, and Zhiyong Huang. 2015. “Needs and attitudes of Singaporeans towards home service robots: a multi-generational perspective.” Universal Access in the Information Society 14: 477–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0355-2.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Craig Webster, Stanislav Ivanov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
CC BY ND 4.0. The Creator/Contributor is the Licensor, who grants the Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the Work on the fields indicated in the License Agreement.
- The Licensor grants the Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the Work/related rights item specified in § 1 within the following fields: a) recording of Work/related rights item; b) reproduction (multiplication) of Work/related rights item in print and digital technology (e-book, audiobook); c) placing the copies of the multiplied Work/related rights item on the market; d) entering the Work/related rights item to computer memory; e) distribution of the work in electronic version in the open access form on the basis of Creative Commons license (CC BY-ND 3.0) via the digital platform of the Nicolaus Copernicus University Press and file repository of the Nicolaus Copernicus University.
- Usage of the recorded Work by the Licensee within the above fields is not restricted by time, numbers or territory.
- The Licensor grants the license for the Work/related rights item to the Licensee free of charge and for an unspecified period of time.
FULL TEXT License Agreement
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 85
Number of citations: 0