IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2016 - 65

the acceptability of non-human appearance do not
seem to be influenced by age.
The data analysis of the relation between education
and ethical acceptability indicate that the level of education is not associated with the acceptability of social
robots for ASD, on any of the three subscales.
The analysis of the relation between social role and
ethical acceptability indicates that parents are open to
the use of social robots in therapy for ASS, but are less
accepting compared with the group of participants that
is not involved with ASD. These data are extremely
important and must be carefully taken into consideration by the developers and implementers of socially
assistive robotics. Even if the mean difference between
the two groups is small, the tendency observed in this
study justifies investigating further if the acceptability
for use is influenced by the affective involvement with
the child with ASD. A difference in the level of affective
involvement might be also responsible for the discrepancies found in the Eurobarometer [12] between the
general positive view of robots and the strong general
opposition of the respondents of having their child or
elderly parent taken care by a robot. This effect might
be due to the higher responsibility level experienced by
people who are more deeply involved with raising and
educating children with ASD. But it also might be related to fears that parents might have about the possible
isolating effect of using robots in therapy, and to a lack
of trust therapists might have in the capabilities of
social robots.
No difference was found between parents, therapists, and others for the other two factors, acceptability of human-like interaction, and acceptability
of non-human appearance. According to our results,
the level of experience with robots has a significant
effect on the level of acceptance of using robots in
therapy. More specifically, adults with specific experience with robots are more willing to accept them
in the therapy for ASD, compared to adults who do
not have any experience with robots. The same
results were found for the acceptability of human-like
interaction, and also for the acceptability of nonhuman appearance. Overall, specific experience with
robots increases the acceptance of social robots for
ASD. These data are congruent with those obtained
in the Eurobarometer [12], where respondents with
personal experience with robots also have a higher
level of general acceptance of robots than those
without any experience.
In conclusion, our data indicate a positive view of
social robots and a high level of ethical acceptability
on all the three subscales in RET of ASD children.
The survey shows that social-demographic factors
such as gender, age, previous experience with robots,
june 2016

∕

and social involvement with children with ASD are
important determinants of view about social robots.
Men seem to be more positive and have a higher
level of ethical acceptability on all the measured
dimensions, and younger respondents are more
willing to accept the use of social robots in RET for
ASD compared to older participants. Regarding the
relation between the involvement with children with
ASD and ethical acceptability, the data show that
parents generally agree with using robots in ASD, but
their agreement level is lower compared with the
group of participants who are not involved directly
with ASD children.
New developments in robotics suggest that we stand
on the verge of a significant change in robotic capabilities. It is important that these changes occur in an ethical and socially responsible way. We recommend that
roboticists who develop new robots for human-robot
interaction, including for autism therapy, take into careful consideration people's perceptions and attitudes.
We suggest that roboticists systematically use feedback information to minimize psychological barriers in
human-robot interaction, and that they develop and
implement social robots in an ethically responsible
way. This means making sure that all kinds of stakeholders are included in the research, with a view to
developing technology and therapeutic practices that
are more inclusive and sensitive to social difference
and inequality. For example, one limitation of the study
refers to the overrepresentation of the sample of
respondents by young and highly educated participants. Women were also overrepresented in our survey
pool. Therefore, our results are limited to our sample
characteristics. Future studies will need to investigate
these aspects on a larger sample that is more representative of all social categories.

Author Information
A. Peca, C. Costescu, and D. David are with Babes¸- Bolyai
University, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Email: andreea.
peca@gmail.com.
S. Pintea is with the Department of Psychology, and
with the Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes¸-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania.
M. Coeckelbergh is with the Centre for Computing and
Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, Leicester,
U.K.
R. Simut is with Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Clinical and
Life Span Psychology Department, Brussels, Belgium.
B. Vanderborght is with Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Robotics and Multibody Mechanics Research Group,
Brussels, Belgium.

IEEE TEchnology and SocIETy MagazInE

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