Autonomy Acceptance Model (AAM): The Role of Autonomy and Risk in Security Robot Acceptance
Authors: 
Xin Ye, Wonse Jo, Arsha Ali, Samia Cornelius Bhatti, 
Connor Esterwood, Hana Andargie Kassie, 
Lionel Peter RobertAuthors Info & Claims
Xin Ye, Wonse Jo, Arsha Ali, Samia Cornelius Bhatti, Connor Esterwood, Hana Andargie Kassie, Lionel Peter RobertAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 840 - 849
Abstract
The rapid deployment of security robots across our society calls for further examination of their acceptance. This study explored human acceptance of security robots by theoretically extending the technology acceptance model to include the impact of autonomy and risk. To accomplish this, an online experiment involving 236 participants was conducted. Participants were randomly assigned to watch a video introducing a security robot operating at an autonomy level of low, moderate, or high, and presenting either a low or high risk to humans. This resulted in a 3 (autonomy) × 2 (risk) between-subjects design. The findings suggest that increased perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and trust enhance acceptance, while higher robot autonomy tends to decrease acceptance. Additionally, the physical risk associated with security robots moderates the relationship between autonomy and acceptance. Based on these results, this paper offer recommendations for future research on security robots.
Supplemental Material
ZIP File
This supplementary material document contains the questionnaires used in the paper 'Autonomy Acceptance Model (AAM): The Role of Autonomy and Risk in Security Robot Acceptance'.
- Download
- 46.23 KB
References
[1]
Anna M. H. Abrams, Pia S. C. Dautzenberg, Carla Jakobowsky, Stefan Ladwig, and Astrid M. Rosenthal-Von Der Pütten. 2021. A theoretical and empirical reflection on technology acceptance models for autonomous delivery robots. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 272--280.
[2]
Ronald Craig Arkin, Patrick Ulam, and Alan R. Wagner. 2011. Moral decision making in autonomous systems: Enforcement, moral emotions, dignity, trust, and deception. Proceedings of the IEEE 100, 3 (2011), 571--589.
[3]
Peter Asaro. 2016. "Hands up, don't shoot!" HRI and the automation of police use of force. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 5, 3 (2016), 55--69.
[4]
Franziska Babel, Philipp Hock, Johannes Kraus, and Martin Baumann. 2022. It will not take long! Longitudinal effects of robot conflict resolution strategies on compliance, acceptance and trust. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, New York, NY, 225--235.
[5]
Jenay M. Beer, Arthur D. Fisk, and Wendy A. Rogers. 2014. Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3, 2 (2014), 74.
[6]
Manon Bertrand and Stéphane Bouchard. 2008. Applying the technology acceptance model to VR with people who are favorable to its use. Journal of Cyber Therapy & Rehabilitation 1, 2 (2008), 200--210.
[7]
Ann-Renée Blais and Elke U. Weber. 2006. A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making 1, 1 (2006), 33--47.
[8]
Christina Bröhl, Jochen Nelles, Christopher Brandl, Alexander Mertens, and Verena Nitsch. 2019. Human--robot collaboration acceptance model: Development and comparison for Germany, Japan, China and the USA. International Journal of Social Robotics 11, 5 (2019), 709--726.
[9]
De'Aira Bryant, Jason Borenstein, and Ayanna Howard. 2020. Why should we gender? The effect of robot gendering and occupational stereotypes on human trust and perceived competency. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 13--21.
[10]
Edward G. Carmines and Richard A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[11]
Lemuria Carter and France Bélanger. 2005. The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal 15, 1 (2005), 5--25.
[12]
William G. Chismar and Sonja Wiley-Patton. 2002. Test of the technology acceptance model for the internet in pediatrics. In Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium. American Medical Informatics Association, Washington, DC, 155.
[13]
Jung Ju Choi, Yunkyung Kim, and Sonya S Kwak. 2013. The impacts of intergroup relations and body zones on people's acceptance of a robot. In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, New York, NY, 107--108.
[14]
Jung Ju Choi, Yunkyung Kim, and Sonya S. Kwak. 2014. The autonomy levels and the human intervention levels of robots: The impact of robot types in humanrobot interaction. In The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, New York, NY, 1069--1074.
[15]
CloudResearch. 2023. Connect for Researchers. Retrieved from https://www.cloudresearch.com/products/connect-for-researchers/.
[16]
Efthymios Constantinides, Marius Kahlert, and Sjoerd A. de Vries. 2017. The relevance of technological autonomy in the acceptance of IoT services in retail. In 2nd International Conference on Internet of Things, Data and Cloud Computing, ICC 2017. ACM, New York, NY, 1--7.
[17]
Martin Cooney, Masahiro Shiomi, Eduardo Kochenborger Duarte, and Alexey Vinel. 2023. A broad view on robot self-defense: Rapid scoping review and cultural comparison. Robotics 12, 2 (2023), 43.
[18]
Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly (1989), 319--340.
[19]
Fred D. Davis, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35, 8 (1989), 982--1003.
[20]
Jeremy F. Dawson. 2014. Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology 29, 1 (2014), 1--19.
[21]
Theo K. Dijkstra and Jörg Henseler. 2015. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly 39, 2 (2015), 297--316.
[22]
Christian Enemark. 2021. Armed drones and ethical policing: risk, perception, and the tele-present officer. Criminal Justice Ethics 40, 2 (2021), 124--144.
[23]
Connor Esterwood, Kyle Essenmacher, Han Yang, Fanpan Zeng, and Lionel Peter Robert. 2021. A meta-analysis of human personality and robot acceptance in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21). ACM, New York, NY, 1--18.
[24]
Francesco Ferrari, Maria Paola Paladino, and Jolanda Jetten. 2016. Blurring human--machine distinctions: Anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. International Journal of Social Robotics 8 (2016), 287--302.
[25]
Claes Fornell and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 1 (1981), 39--50.
[26]
Caleb Furlough, Thomas Stokes, and Douglas J. Gillan. 2021. Attributing blame to robots: I. The influence of robot autonomy. Human Factors 63, 4 (2021), 592--602.
[27]
Darci Gallimore, Joseph B. Lyons, Thy Vo, Sean Mahoney, and Kevin T. Wynne. 2019. Trusting robocop: Gender-based effects on trust of an autonomous robot. Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019), 482.
[28]
David Gefen, Elena Karahanna, and Detmar W Straub. 2003. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly (2003), 51--90.
[29]
Mahtab Ghazizadeh, Yiyun Peng, JohnD. Lee, and Linda Ng Boyle. 2012. Augmenting the technology acceptance model with trust: Commercial drivers' attitudes towards monitoring and feedback. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 56. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2286--2290.
[30]
Fahimeh Golbabaei, Tan Yigitcanlar, Alexander Paz, and Jonathan Bunker. 2020. Individual predictors of autonomous vehicle public acceptance and intention to use: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6, 4 (2020), 106.
[31]
Joe Hair Jr., Joseph F Hair Jr., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2021. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[32]
Annmarie Hanlon and Tracy L. Tuten. 2022. The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[33]
Marcel Heerink. 2011. Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 147--148.
[34]
Marcel Heerink, Ben Kröse, Vanessa Evers, and Bob Wielinga. 2010. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics 2, 4 (2010), 361--375.
[35]
Charlie Hewitt, Ioannis Politis, Theocharis Amanatidis, and Advait Sarkar. 2019. Assessing public perception of self-driving cars: The autonomous vehicle acceptance model. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, New York, NY, 518--527.
[36]
Jacob Jacoby and Leon B. Kaplan. 1972. The components of perceived risk. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. ACR Special Volumes (1972), 382--393.
[37]
Sarah Jessup, Sasha M. Willis, and Gene Alarcon. 2023. Extending the Affective Technology Acceptance Model to Human-Robot Interactions: A Multi-Method Perspective. In Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 491--501.
[38]
KENS 5: Your San Antonio News Source. 2022. New technology involving robots being used by hotels to deal with theft and vandalism. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X67LIUOIfFg.
[39]
Eric H. Kessler. 2013. Encyclopedia of Management Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[40]
William R. King and Jun He. 2006. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 43, 6 (2006), 740--755.
[41]
Sonya S. Kwak, Jun San Kim, and Jung Ju Choi. 2014. Can robots be sold? The effects of robot designs on the consumers' acceptance of robots. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 220--221.
[42]
Mark J. Landau, Aaron C. Kay, and Jennifer A. Whitson. 2015. Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychological Bulletin 141, 3 (2015), 694.
[43]
John D. Lee and Katrina A. See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors 46, 1 (2004), 50--80.
[44]
Ming-Chi Lee. 2009. Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 8, 3 (2009), 130--141.
[45]
Wen-Hwa Lee, Ching-Wen Lin, and Kuang-Heng Shih. 2018. A technology acceptance model for the perception of restaurant service robots for trust, interactivity, and output quality. International Journal of Mobile Communications 16, 4 (2018), 361--376.
[46]
Chaolan Lin, Karl F. MacDorman, Selma Sabanović, Andrew D. Miller, and Erin Brady. 2020. Parental expectations, concerns, and acceptance of storytelling robots for children. In Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 346--348.
[47]
Jinchao Lin, April Rose Panganiban, Gerald Matthews, Katey Gibbins, Emily Ankeney, Carlie See, Rachel Bailey, and Michael Long. 2022. Trust in the danger zone: Individual differences in confidence in robot threat assessments. Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022), 601523.
[48]
Jan-Bernd Lohmöller. 2013. Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY.
[49]
Shelby K. Long, Nicole D. Karpinsky, and James P. Bliss. 2017. Trust of simulated robotic peacekeepers among resident and expatriate Americans. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 61. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2091--2095.
[50]
Joseph B. Lyons, Sarah A. Jessup, and Thy Q. Vo. 2022. The Role of Decision Authority and Stated Social Intent as Predictors of Trust in Autonomous Robots. Topics in Cognitive Science (2022).
[51]
Joseph B. Lyons, Chang S. Nam, Sarah A. Jessup, Thy Q. Vo, and Kevin T. Wynne. 2020. The role of individual differences as predictors of trust in autonomous security robots. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS). IEEE, New York, NY, 1--5.
[52]
Joseph B. Lyons, Thy Vo, Kevin T. Wynne, Sean Mahoney, Chang S. Nam, and Darci Gallimore. 2021. Trusting autonomous security robots: The role of reliability and stated social intent. Human Factors 63, 4 (2021), 603--618.
[53]
Nikola Maranguni? and Andrina Grani?. 2015. Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society 14 (2015), 81--95.
[54]
Gabriela Marcu, Iris Lin, Brandon Williams, Lionel Robert, Florian Schaub, et al. 2023. "Would I Feel More Secure With a Robot?": Understanding Perceptions of Security Robots in Public Spaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7, CSCW2, Article 322 (Oct 2023).
[55]
Roger C. Mayer, James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20, 3 (
[56]
M. R. McGuire. 2021. The laughing policebot: Automation and the end of policing. Policing and Society 31, 1 (2021), 20--36.
[57]
Cristina Mele, T. Russo Spena, Marco Tregua, Cesare Laddaga, Angelo Ranieri, Andrea Ruggiero, and Roberta Gargiulo. 2020. Understanding robot acceptance/ rejection: The SAR model. In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, New York, NY, 470--475.
[58]
Jonathan Mumm and Bilge Mutlu. 2011. Human-robot proxemics: physical and psychological distancing in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 331--338.
[59]
Stanislava Naneva, Marina Sarda Gou, Thomas L. Webb, and Tony J. Prescott. 2020. A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 12, 6 (2020), 1179--1201.
[60]
New York Post. 2018. LaGuardia Airport's security robot is giving women the creeps. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2018/05/03/laguardia-airportssecurity- robot-is-giving-women-the-creeps/.
[61]
Marketta Niemelä, Anne Arvola, and Iina Aaltonen. 2017. Monitoring the acceptance of a social service robot in a shopping mall: First results. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 225--226.
[62]
Donald A. Norman. 1994. How might people interact with agents. Communications of the ACM 37, 7 (1994), 68--71.
[63]
NPR. 2021. "Creepy" Robot Dog Loses Job With New York Police Department. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2021/04/30/992551579/creepy-robot-dogloses- job-with-new-york-police-department.
[64]
Scott Ososky. 2013. Influence of task-role mental models on human interpretation of robot motion behavior. (2013). Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
[65]
Sebastian Osswald, Daniela Wurhofer, Sandra Trösterer, Elke Beck, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2012. Predicting information technology usage in the car: Towards a car technology acceptance model. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, New York, NY, 51--58.
[66]
Raja Parasuraman, Thomas B. Sheridan, and Christopher D. Wickens. 2008. Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 2, 2 (2008), 140--160.
[67]
Chankook Park and Min Jeong. 2021. A Study of Factors Influencing on Passive and Active Acceptance of Home Energy Management Services with Internet of Things. Energies 14, 12 (2021), 3631.
[68]
Paul A. Pavlou. 2003. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 7, 3 (2003), 101--134.
[69]
Ana Pinto, Sónia Sousa, Ana Simões, Joana Santos, et al. 2022. A Trust Scale for Human-Robot Interaction: Translation, Adaptation, and Validation of a Human Computer Trust Scale. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2022 (2022).
[70]
Christian M. Ringle and Sven Wende and Jan-Michael Becker. 2022. SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.com.
[71]
Daan Robben, Eriko Fukuda, and Mirjam De Haas. 2023. The Effect of Gender on Perceived Anthropomorphism and Intentional Acceptance of a Storytelling Robot. In Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 495--499.
[72]
Lionel P. Robert, Alan R. Denis, and Yu-Ting Caisy Hung. 2009. Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems 26, 2 (2009), 241--279.
[73]
Christina Rödel, Susanne Stadler, Alexander Meschtscherjakov, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2014. Towards autonomous cars: The effect of autonomy levels on acceptance and user experience. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, New York, NY, 1--8.
[74]
Kantwon Rogers, De'Aira Bryant, and Ayanna Howard. 2020. Robot gendering: Influences on trust, occupational competency, and preference of robot over human. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1--7.
[75]
Ted Roselius. 1971. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing 35, 1 (1971), 56--61.
[76]
Max Schwarz, Jörg Stückler, and Sven Behnke. 2014. Mobile teleoperation interfaces with adjustable autonomy for personal service robots. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 288--289.
[77]
Kyung Hwa Seo and Jee Hye Lee. 2021. The emergence of service robots at restaurants: Integrating trust, perceived risk, and satisfaction. Sustainability 13, 8 (2021), 4431.
[78]
Sharkey, Noel. 2016. Are we prepared for more killer police robots? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/killerpolice- robots-legal-consequences-dallas.
[79]
Sharan Srinivas, Surya Ramachandiran, and Suchithra Rajendran. 2022. Autonomous robot-driven deliveries: A review of recent developments and future directions. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 165 (2022), 102834.
[80]
Julia G. Stapels and Friederike Eyssel. 2022. Robocalypse? yes, please! the role of robot autonomy in the development of ambivalent attitudes towards robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 14, 3 (2022), 683--697.
[81]
Statistics Market Research Consulting Pvt Ltd. 2019. Security Robot -- Global Market Outlook (2017--2026). Retrieved from https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4765037/security-robot-globalmarket- outlook-2017--2026.
[82]
Ruth Maria Stock and Moritz Merkle. 2017. A service Robot Acceptance Model: User acceptance of humanoid robots during service encounters. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops). IEEE, New York, NY, 339--344.
[83]
Bomil Suh and Ingoo Han. 2002. Effect of trust on customer acceptance of Internet banking. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1, 3--4 (2002), 247--263.
[84]
Benedict Tiong Chee Tay, Taezoon Park, Younbo Jung, Yeow Kee Tan, and Alvin Hong Yee Wong. 2013. When stereotypes meet robots: The effect of gender stereotypes on people's acceptance of a security robot. In International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Springer, New York, NY, 261--270.
[85]
Yvette J. Tenney, William H. Rogers, and Richard W. Pew. 1998. Pilot opinions on cockpit automation issues. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 8, 2 (1998), 103--120.
[86]
Saba Torki Biucky, Neda Abdolvand, and Saeedeh Rajaee Harandi. 2017. The effects of perceived risk on social commerce adoption based on TAM model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies 8, 2 (2017), 173--196.
[87]
E. S. Vorm and David J. Y. Combs. 2022. Integrating transparency, trust, and acceptance: The intelligent systems technology acceptance model (ISTAM). International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction 38, 18--20 (2022), 1828--1845.
[88]
Weiquan Wang and Izak Benbasat. 2004. Trust and TAM for online recommendation agents. AMCIS 2004 Proceedings (2004), 244.
[89]
Elke U. Weber, Ann-Renee Blais, and Nancy E. Betz. 2002. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15, 4 (2002), 263--290.
[90]
Jurgen Willems, Lisa Schmidthuber, Dominik Vogel, Falk Ebinger, and Dieter Vanderelst. 2022. Ethics of robotized public services: The role of robot design and its actions. Government Information Quarterly 39, 2 (2022), 101683.
[91]
Kewen Wu, Yuxiang Zhao, Qinghua Zhu, Xiaojie Tan, and Hua Zheng. 2011. A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: Investigation of moderating influence of subject and context type. International Journal of Information Management 31, 6 (2011), 572--581.
[92]
Xin Ye and Lionel P. Robert. 2023. Human Security Robot Interaction and Anthropomorphism: An Examination of Pepper, RAMSEE, and Knightscope Robots. In 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, New York, NY, 982--987.
[93]
Sangseok You, Jeong-Hwan Kim, SangHyun Lee, Vineet Kamat, and Lionel P. Robert Jr. 2018. Enhancing perceived safety in human--robot collaborative construction using immersive virtual environments. Automation in Construction 96 (2018), 161--170.
[94]
Sangseok You and Lionel P. Robert Jr. 2018. Human-robot similarity and willingness to work with a robotic co-worker. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 251-- 260.
[95]
Hsiu-Ping Yueh and Weijane Lin. 2016. Services, appearances and psychological factors in intelligent home service robots. In Proceedings of the Cross-Cultural Design: 8th International Conference, CCD 2016, Held as Part of HCI International 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17--22, 2016. Springer, New York, NY, 608--615.
[96]
Tingru Zhang, Da Tao, Xingda Qu, Xiaoyan Zhang, Rui Lin, and Wei Zhang. 2019. The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public's acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 98 (2019), 207--220.
[97]
Jakub Zlotowski, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Christoph Bartneck. 2017. Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 100 (2017), 48--54.
Index Terms
- Autonomy Acceptance Model (AAM): The Role of Autonomy and Risk in Security Robot Acceptance
Recommendations
Trust and risk in consumer acceptance of e-services
Consumers' risk perception and trust are considered among the most important psychological states that influence online behavior. Despite the number of empirical studies that have explored the effects of trust and risk perceptions on consumer acceptance ...
Explaining physicians' acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors
This paper explains physicians' acceptance, in terms of usage intentions, of a central component of health information technology: electronic health care records (EHCR systems). For this purpose, the original version of the Technology Acceptance Model (...
Post-Acceptance Intentions and Behaviors: An Empirical Investigation of Information Technology Use and Innovation
Due to its extensive use for the study of information technology adoption and use, the Technology Acceptance Model TAM serves as an ideal base model for the study of post-acceptance IT diffusion outcomes. The research presented in this paper ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
March 2024
982 pages
ISBN:9798400703225
DOI:10.1145/3610977
- General Chairs:
- Dan Grollman,
- Elizabeth Broadbent,
- Program Chairs:
- Wendy Ju,
- Harold Soh,
- Tom Williams
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 March 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
HRI '24: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
March 11 - 15, 2024
CO, Boulder, USA
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 363Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)363
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)68
Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in