IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2016 - 64

significant difference in the scores of male participants
(M = 4.05, Sd = 0.73) and female participants (M =
3.65, Sd = 0.82), t(338) = −3.37, p = 0.001, with a moderate effect size (d = −0.50). These results suggest that
gender is related to the Acceptability of Non-Human
Appearance. Specifically, our results suggest that men
manifest a higher level of Acceptability of Non-Human
Appearance compared to women.

Age
A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to
assess the relationship between the age of the participants and Acceptability of Non-Human Appearance.
The correlation between the two variables was not significant, r = −0.068, N = 395, p = 0.209. The results
indicate that the age of the participants and the Acceptability of Non-Human Appearance are not associated.

It [is] ethically acceptable for social
robots to have non-human (animal,
object, or imaginary creature)
appearance.

Education
A Spearman correlation coefficient was computed to
assess the relationship between the education level of
the participants and the Acceptability of Non-Human
Appearance. The negative correlation between the two
variables was not significant, r = 0.062, N = 394, p =
0.252. The results indicate that the education level of
the participants and the Acceptability of Non-Human
Appearance are not associated.

Social role
For the Acceptability of Non-Human Appearance, the
analysis of variance indicates that there are no significant differences between groups of parents, therapists,
and others on the Acceptability of Non-Human Appearance subscale F(2, 394) = 1.38, p = 0.25.

Experience with robots
For the Acceptability of Non-Human Appearance, the
analysis of variance revealed a significant difference
between groups with different levels of experience with
robots, F(2, 198) = 7.66, p = 0.001.
Post hoc analysis using the Sheffe post hoc criterion
for significance indicated that the group with specific

experience with robots manifested a higher level of
Acceptability of Human Interaction (M = 4.08, Sd =
0.70) compared to the group with no experience with
robots (M = 3.45, Sd = 0.89) and the mean difference
MD = 1.88 was significant, p = 0.001, with a high effect
size (d = 0.779).

Ethical Responsibility in Robotic Development
Overall, the data analysis indicates that the majority
of the respondents have a positive view regarding
the use of social robots in the RET domain for ASD.
Furthermore, the majority of the respondents considered it ethically acceptable to use social robots as
assistive tools for therapists, while opposing the use
of the robots in the absence of the therapists. A positive attitude regarding the use of social robots for
diagnosis, recording, and storing information and
monitoring the evolution of the therapeutic process
was revealed.
Regarding the ethical acceptability of human-like
interaction between children with ASD and social
robots, a significantly higher percentage of the
respondents consider it ethically acceptable to develop and use in RET social robots that relate to children
in a ways similar to the way humans do. However, a
high percentage of respondents seem to be undecided, indicating a lack of a defined attitude regarding
human-like interaction between children with ASD and
social robots. This effect might be due to the novelty
of social robotics domain, and to the fact that robots
are still perceived more as tools [12] and less as
intentional agents possessing their own personality
features. Interestingly, the high percentage of undecided respondents may tip the balance to one side
or another.
Regarding the non-human appearance of robots,
the data indicates that a majority of respondents
consider it ethically acceptable for social robots to
have non-human (animal, object, or imaginary creature) appearance.
Analysis of the relation between different sociodemographic predictors and ethical acceptability factors reveals a more nuanced image of public attitudes
toward social robots. Overall, men manifest a higher
level of acceptance of social robots in RET for children
with ASD. This data is congruent with the data
obtained by previous studies [2], [12]. Moreover, the
analysis of the relation between age and ethical
acceptability suggests that younger adults are more
accepting of the use of social robots for therapy for
children with ASD, while this tendency decreases in
older adults. This data is congruent with the data
obtained by previous studies [2], [5]. On the other
hand, the acceptability of human-like interaction and

IEEE TEchnology and SocIETy MagazInE

∕

june 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2016