Stigma and Service Robots

Abstract

Service robots hold the potential to assist both specific user populations with tailored support while also serving the broader public domain. As the demographic shift towards an older population continues, the increasing diversity of accessibility needs means that service robots will need to accommodate a broader range of users, necessitating the integration of lessons from the domain of Assistive Technology (AT). However, the assistive nature of service robots necessitates consideration of stigma, which has historically hindered the adoption of AT and robots, especially among populations susceptible to societal biases or discrimination. In this paper, we delve into how stigma manifests and operates in the context of service robots, identifying open research questions that warrant further exploration. We explore the relationship between assistive and service robots, critically analyze existing research on stigma and robotics, and examine known solutions for reducing stigma through design. We lay the groundwork for innovative solutions and strategies to confront the challenges posed by stigma and the acceptation of service robots.

Full text

Stigma and Service Robots
Tanaka Akiyama
tanaka.akiyama@mail.mcgill.ca
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Christopher Yee Wong
christopher.wong3@mcgill.ca
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
AJung Moon
ajung.moon@mcgill.ca
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
ABSTRACT
Service robots hold the potential to assist both specic user popu-
lations with tailored support while also serving the broader public
domain. As the demographic shift towards an older population
continues, the increasing diversity of accessibility needs means
that service robots will need to accommodate a broader range of
users, necessitating the integration of lessons from the domain of
Assistive Technology (
AT
). However, the assistive nature of service
robots necessitates consideration of stigma, which has historically
hindered the adoption of
AT
and robots, especially among popula-
tions susceptible to societal biases or discrimination. In this paper,
we delve into how stigma manifests and operates in the context of
service robots, identifying open research questions that warrant
further exploration. We explore the relationship between assistive
and service robots, critically analyze existing research on stigma
and robotics, and examine known solutions for reducing stigma
through design. We lay the groundwork for innovative solutions
and strategies to confront the challenges posed by stigma and the
acceptation of service robots.
KEYWORDS
universal design, stigma, self-stigma, service robotics, technology
adoption
ACM Reference Format:
Tanaka Akiyama, Christopher Yee Wong,and AJung Moon. 2024. Stigma and
Service Robots. In 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot
Interaction - Workshop on Assistive Applications, Accessibility, and Disability
Ethics (HRI ’24 A3DE), March 11–14, 2024, Boulder, CO, USA. ,3pages.
1 INTRODUCTION
As service robots become increasingly integrated into various as-
pects of daily life, it is necessary to reassess our preconceptions
about their purpose and user base. Service robots may range from
personalized aids for specic user groups to robots serving in the
public domain, such as a greeter [
11
]. The demographic trends
forecast a substantial increase in individuals with impairments and
disabilities, signifying a pressing need for inclusive design and
innovation. For example, the number of individuals with visual
impairments in the United States alone is projected to reach up to 7
million by 2050 [
16
]. In order for service robots to provide service
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the rst page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
HRI’24 A3DE, Mar 2024,
©2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
.
Figure 1: Perceived and self-stigma with a service robot acting
as a robotic shopping assistant in a grocery store.
for the majority of the future, then, they need to be designed with
lessons from the domain of AT.
One important factor of creating
AT
that is welcomed and adopted
by users is the consideration for stigma. Just like with
AT
, stigma
eects can inuence societal acceptance and the adoption of robotic
services we aim to provide. For instance, a service robot deployed
in a store to assist individuals with mobility or visual challenges
may inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or feelings of inadequacy,
contributing to perceived stigma among observers and potentially
exacerbating self-stigmatization among users (Figure 1).
In this paper, we explore how stigma can manifest and operate in
the context of service robots and identify open research questions
that require further investigation. We rst explore the relationship
between assistive and service robots (Sec. 2). We then critically
analyze existing research on stigma and robotics (Sec. 3). Finally,
we examine known solutions to reducing stigma by design (Sec. 4).
By exploring stigma considerations in the design of service robots,
we aspire to pave the way for innovative solutions and strategies
to develop service robots that garner acceptance and ultimately
enhance the quality of life for all individuals.
2 ASSISTIVE VS. SERVICE ROBOTS
Service robots, distinct from assistive robots, are designed for com-
munal use and cater to diverse users regardless of their abilities.
We can think of service robots as public-facing robots that have
assistive features. For this reason, it becomes crucial to examine the
stigma associated with service robots, as it is a prominent challenge
regarding the acceptance of
AT
. Stigma can signicantly impact
the acceptance, usability, and eectiveness of the technology, par-
ticularly among populations that may already face societal biases
or discrimination [7,15,20].

HRI’24 A3DE, Mar 2024, Akiyama, Wong, Moon
On the other hand, many assistive robots have been specically
designed for particular user groups, including robots for elderly
care, educational robots for children with autism, and robots for
mobility, such as prosthetics and exoskeletons. While designing
robots for specic user groups is common, designing robots that
cater to a diverse range of users with dierent abilities and needs is
relatively uncommon. For example, the existing literature on uni-
versal design and robot accessibility primarily focuses on designing
environments to accommodate robots and addressing how robots
can assist individuals with visual or auditory impairments [
14
].
There is a noticeable gap in research addressing how universal
design principles can be eectively implemented in service robots,
leaving the question: What does universal design entail when applied
to service robots?
3 STIGMA IN ROBOTICS
Understanding both perceived and self-stigmatization is essential to
address the acceptance of service robots. Perceived stigma refers to
negative perceptions held by members of the public towards individ-
uals with stigmatized attributes, while self-stigma manifests when
individuals internalize these societal attitudes [
4
]. An example high-
lighting the existence of perceived and self-stigma can be found in
a study where participants without disabilities generally perceived
AT
positively, acknowledging its role in fostering independence and
empowerment. Conversely, individuals with disabilities recognized
the drawbacks of
AT
, including its potential to attract unwanted
attention and overshadow individual identities [1].
Stigma associated with
AT
, including assistive robots, has been
observed in various studies [
1
,
2
,
6
,
7
,
13
,
15
,
20
]. Older adults, in
particular, may perceive the use of assistive robots as indicative of
dependency or declining abilities, a stigma they nd unacceptable
and thus a substantial barrier to assistive robot acceptance [
7
,
15
,
20
].
Given that service robots will use assistive features, it is reasonable
to predict that they will face challenges regarding their acceptance.
This prompts the question: Will service robots encounter the same
degree of stigmatization as assistive robots?
Within the eld of Human Robot Interaction (
HRI
) and robotics,
the assessment of stigma upon robot use is notably sparse and inade-
quately represented. The Technology Acceptance Model (
TAM
) [
5
]
is a widely recognized framework utilized to assess the acceptance
of assistive robots in various studies [
3
,
9
,
15
]. However, this frame-
work does not consider stigma at all, despite its recognition as a
signicant obstacle to robot acceptance. Some eorts have been
made, such as the Unied Theory of Acceptance and Use of Tech-
nology (
UTAUT
) [
17
], which incorporates a stigma category, and
the inclusion of a single stigma-related question within a robot-
acceptance questionnaire [
20
]. However, there is potential to en-
hance these methods to comprehensively encompass the diverse di-
mensions of stigma, such as distinguishing between self-stigma and
perceived stigma. Extensive measures for identifying self-stigma
do exist within the psychology eld [
10
,
19
]. Their applicability
and relevance to the domain of robotics and
HRI
requires further
exploration. Thus, there is a compelling need for more comprehen-
sive and nuanced metrics to eectively evaluate and address stigma
associated with the utilization of robots.
4 REDUCING STIGMA
Universal design has been proposed as a promising approach to
address the stigma surrounding assistive robots and technology [
13
,
20
]. By adhering to universal design principles, products, environ-
ments, and systems are crafted to be accessible and user-friendly
for individuals with diverse abilities and disabilities, eliminating the
need for specialized adaptations. This approach not only normal-
izes the use of the service robot but also diminishes the visibility of
disability-related accommodations, potentially mitigating stigma.
Eorts to mitigate stigma associated with robot use have also
led to design approaches such as hiding the robot or making it
blend in with the environment [
8
,
12
,
18
]. While hiding the robot
addresses perceived stigma by integrating it inconspicuously into
the environment, it may not eectively tackle the main issue of self-
stigma, which is arguably more critical for technology adoption.
Marketing strategies have also been proposed as a means to
destigmatize images of assistive robotics to increase their accep-
tance for older people, suggesting that targeted campaigns and
educational initiatives could play a pivotal role in reshaping soci-
etal perceptions and reducing stigmatization associated with the
use of assistive robots [7].
Despite eorts to address stigma through various strategies, the
eectiveness of these approaches in reducing stigma and fostering
acceptance remains a pertinent question. What is the ecacy of
each method in mitigating stigma associated with service robots?,
Do certain strategies outperform others?, and What could be the
potential outcome of combined approaches? Further research and
implementation are necessary to comprehensively understand and
leverage the potential of these approaches in tackling stigma and
promoting inclusivity within the domain of service robotics.
5 CONCLUSION
Through an exploration of the assistive and service robot relation-
ship, a critical analysis of existing research on stigma in robotics,
and an examination of solutions to mitigate stigma, we identify key
areas for further investigation.
In light of the open questions we have identied, we propose a
research agenda aimed at addressing key aspects of service robot
design and stigma mitigation. This agenda entails investigating
how service robots can be eectively designed to cater to a diverse
user group while simultaneously minimizing stigma. Furthermore,
research eorts should delve into quantifying the degree of stigma-
tization associated with service robots and developing standardized
metrics to evaluate stigma upon robot use. Additionally, exploring
optimal strategies for reducing stigma in the context of service
robots is crucial for enhancing their acceptance and utilization.
By investigating these questions, we can pave the way for a more
inclusive and accepting society where service robots fulll their
promise of enhancing quality of life and addressing societal needs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the nancial support of the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Quebec
Ministère de l’Économie, de l’Innovation et de l’Énergie. We also
thank Drs. Yu-Shan Huang and Margot Racat for their insights that
motivated us to explore this subject matter.

Stigma and Service Robots HRI’24 A3DE, Mar 2024,
REFERENCES
[1]
Giulia Barbareschi, Mark T Carew, Elizabeth Aderonke Johnson, Norah Kopi, and
Catherine Holloway. 2021. “When They See a Wheelchair, They’ve Not Even Seen
Me”—Factors Shaping the Experience of Disability Stigma and Discrimination in
Kenya. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, 8
(2021), 4272. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1284
[2]
Pamara F Chang and Rachel V Tucker. 2022. Assistive Communication Tech-
nologies and Stigma: How Perceived Visibility of Cochlear Implants Aects
Self-Stigma and Social Interaction Anxiety. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-
Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512924
[3]
Tiany L Chen, Tapomayukh Bhattacharjee, Jenay M Beer, Lena H Ting,
Madeleine E Hackney, Wendy A Rogers, and Charles C Kemp. 2017. Older
adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise. PloS one 12, 10
(2017), e0182736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182736
[4]
Patrick W Corrigan, Amy C Watson, and Leah Barr. 2006. The Self–Stigma of
Mental Illness: Implications for Self–Esteem and Self–Ecacy. Journal of social
and clinical psychology 25, 8 (2006), 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512924
[5]
Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User
Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319–340.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
[6]
Aline Darc Piculo Dos Santos, Ana Lya Moya Ferrari, Fausto Orsi Medola, and
Frode Eika Sandnes. 2022. Aesthetics and the Perceived Stigma of Assistive Tech-
nology for Visual Impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology
17, 2 (2022), 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1768308
[7]
Sebastian Glende, Isabel Conrad, Livia Krezdorn, Susann Klemcke, and Carola
Krätzel. 2016. Increasing the Acceptance of Assistive Robots for Older People
Through Marketing Strategies Based on Stakeholder Needs. International Journal
of Social Robotics 8, 3 (2016), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015- 0328-5
[8]
João Guerreiro, Daisuke Sato, Saki Asakawa, Huixu Dong, Kris M Kitani, and
Chieko Asakawa. 2019. Cabot: Designing and Evaluating an Autonomous
Navigation Robot for Blind People. In Proceedings of the 21st International
ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 68–82. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3353771
[9]
Saso Koceski and Natasa Koceska. 2016. Evaluation of an Assistive Telepresence
Robot for Elderly Healthcare. Journal of medical systems 40 (2016), 1–7. https:
//doi.org/10.1007/s10916-016- 0481-x
[10]
Noboru Komiya, Glenn E Good, and Nancy B Sherrod. 2000. Emotional openness
as a predictor of college students’ attitudes toward seeking psychological help.
Journal of counseling psychology 47, 1 (2000), 138. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0167.47.1.138
[11]
Nick Boisvert
·
CBC News
·
. 2019. HSBC Introduces ’Pepper’ the
Robot — Promising Fun, Eciency and Job Growth | CBC News.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/hsbc-introduces-pepper-the-robot-
promising-fun-eciency-and-job-growth-1.5261812.
[12]
Ciarán T O’Neill, Nathan S Phipps, Leonardo Cappello, Sabrina Paganoni, and
Conor J Walsh. 2017. A Soft Wearable Robot for the shoulder: Design, Characteri-
zation, and Preliminary Testing. In 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation
Robotics (ICORR). IEEE, 1672–1678. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2017.8009488
[13]
Phil Parette and Marcia Scherer. 2004. Assistive Technology Use and Stigma.
Education and training in developmental disabilities (2004), 217–226. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/23880164
[14]
Trenton Schulz and Diana Saplacan. 2022. Notes from Literature about Universal
Design, Accessibility & Robots. NR-notat (2022). https://nr.brage.unit.no/nr-
xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3054590/DART-21-22-Notes+from+Literature+
about+Universal+Design%2C+Accessibility+and+Robots.pdf?sequence=1
[15]
Linda Shore, Valerie Power, Adam De Eyto, and Leonard W O’Sullivan. 2018.
Technology Acceptance and User-Centred Design of Assistive Exoskeletons for
Older Adults: A Commentary. Robotics 7, 1 (2018), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/
robotics7010003
[16]
Rohit Varma, Thasarat S. Vajaranant, Bruce Burkemper, Shuang Wu, Mina Torres,
Chunyi Hsu, Farzana Choudhury, and Roberta McKean-Cowdin. 2016. Visual
Impairment and Blindness in Adults in the United States: Demographic and
Geographic Variations From 2015 to 2050. JAMA Ophthalmology 134, 7 (July
2016), 802. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1284
[17]
Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis.
2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unied View. MIS
Quarterly 27, 3 (2003), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
[18]
Siddharth Verma, Phanideep Gonthina, Zachary Hawks, Dixit Nahar, Johnell O.
Brooks, Ian D. Walker, Yixiao Wang, Carlos de Aguiar, and Keith E. Green. 2018.
Design and Evaluation of Two Robotic Furnishings Partnering with Each Other
and Their Users to Enable Independent Living. In Proceedings of the 12th EAI
International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (New
York, NY, USA) (PervasiveHealth ’18). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240925.3240978
[19]
David L Vogel, Nathaniel G Wade, and Shawn Haake. 2006. Measuring the
self-stigma associated with seeking psychological help. Journal of counseling
psychology 53, 3 (2006), 325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.325
[20]
Ya-Huei Wu, Jérémy Wrobel, Mélanie Cornuet, Hélène Kerhervé, Souad Damnée,
and Anne-Sophie Rigaud. 2014. Acceptance of an Assistive Robot in Older
Adults: A Mixed-Method Study of Human-Robot Interaction over a 1-Month
Period in the Living Lab Setting. Clinical interventions in aging (2014), 801–811.
https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S56435