IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2019 - 49

the majority chose "agree" (Table 2). A strongly positive
attitude toward robots was found (79.4%), despite concerns that new technology can take away jobs from
humans (68%). About having a robot as friend, 41%
responded favorably, and 71% did not consider robots a
threat. About trusting robots in various situations,
almost 50% would trust them to perform surgery, pilot a
plane, and tutor students. In other scenarios, the percentages are more varied: 56% would trust a robot as
cook, 57% as personal trainer, 61% in a military capacity, 69% as taxi driver, 91% as street cleaner, and 93% as
house cleaner. Conversely, the majority of respondents
would not trust a robot to look after the safety of a city
(62%) or care for their own grandparent (70%). Likewise,
they would not trust a robot in the role of teacher (72%)
or in positions of command (90%). An anthropomorphic
appearance for the robot was undesirable in connection
with most of the roles listed. Only in the cases of tutor,
personal trainer, friend, teacher, and caregiver for one's
own grandparent were the responses positive for an
anthropomorphic appearance (54 to 70%). In all these
cases, except for that of personal trainer, the robot
activities refer to relational roles (Table 3).
Regarding the question on positions of command,
only 10% would trust a robot in a position of command,
of which slightly more than half, 53%, would accept an
anthropomorphic appearance.

TABLE 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents.

The relationship between a positive view of robots
and other variables was investigated (Table 4). Statistically significant relationships (p < 0.05) were found with:
personal interest in technology (odds ratio (OR) 3.8);
robot use (OR 2); taking away jobs (OR 0.2); robots as a
threat (OR 0.1).
The statistics produced by crossing a positive attitude toward robots with friend, surgeon, pilot, taxi driver, house cleaner and city street cleaner, teacher, tutor,
safety personnel, component of military unit, caregiver,
cook, and personal trainer were consistently significant
with an OR ranging from 1.7 to 4.3 (p < 0.05) (Table 4).
A positive attitude toward robots crossed with the
respondent's sex showed a positive association among
male respondents with a OR of 1.9 (p < 0.05).
For question 1, the OR for neutral and not confident
in humans answers crossed with a personal interest in
technology was significant: 0.58 (p  < 0.05). Analogous
results were produced for questions 2 and 4: 0.59 and
0.6, respectively. Regarding question 1, "neutral and
confident in humans" answers crossed with concerns
that new technology can take away jobs from humans
produced a significant OR of 0.56 (p < 0.05).

TABLE 2. Section A: Respondent Attitudes
about General Trust.
Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Q1

641 (66.3%)

274 (28.3%)

52 (5.4%)

Q2

593 (55.3%)

322 (30%)

157 (14.7%)

Q3

506 (47.2%)

394 (36.8%)

172 (16%)

Q4

461 (43%)

421 (39.3%)

190 (17.7%)

Q5

275 (25.7%)

198 (18.5%)

599 (55.9%)

Q6

199 (18.6%)

194 (18.1%)

679 (63.3%)

Age

N(%)

14-15

284 (23.4%)

16-17

359 (29.6%)

18-19

189 (15.6%)

20-21

138 (11.4%)

22-23

105 (8.7%)

24-25

68 (5.6%)

26-27

33 (2.7%)

TABLE 3. Section B: Anthropomorphic Preferences
for Application Areas.

28-30

37 (3.1%)

Relational Tasks

Technical Tasks

Sex

Friendship

58%

Surgery

35%

Male

640 (52.8%)

Teaching

63%

Plane piloting

34%

Female

573 (47.2%)

Tutoring

54%

Taxi driving

40%

Caregiving

70%

House cleaning

37%

Type and level of instruction
High school

863 (71%)

City cleaning

33%

Technical field

816 (95%)

City safety

48%

Humanistic field

47 (5%)

Military activities

38%

University

350 (29%)

Positions of command

53%

Technical field

295 (84%)

Cooking

42%

Humanistic field

55 (16%)

Personal trainer

56%

DECEMBER 2019

∕

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

49
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - December 2019
