Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Robotics and Autonomous Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/robot

Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of social robots among

early adopters and mass market representatives
∗
Ulla A. Saari a,b , , Antero Tossavainen a , Kirsikka Kaipainen c , Saku J. Mäkinen a
a
Unit of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Management & Business, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 8, P.O. Box
541, 33014, Finland
b
Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University, Gjuterigatan 5, 553 18, Jönköping, Sweden
c
Unit of Computing Sciences, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 1, P.O. Box
553, 33014, Finland

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: When designing social robots, it is crucial to understand the diverse expectations of different kinds
Received 21 September 2021 of innovation adopters. Different factors influence early adopters of innovations and mass market
Received in revised form 3 December 2021 representatives’ perceptions of the usefulness of social robots. The first aim of the study was to
Accepted 17 January 2022
test how applicable the technology acceptance model 3 (TAM3) is in the context of social robots.
Available online 26 January 2022
Participants’ acceptance of social robotics in a workplace environment in the fuzzy front-end (FFE)
Keywords: innovation phase of a robot development project was examined. Based on the findings for the model,
Robots we developed a reduced version of the TAM3 that is more applicable for social robots. The second
Technology acceptance model objective was to analyze how early adopters’ and mass market representatives’ acceptance of social
Early adopter robots differs. Quantitative research methods were used. For early adopters, result demonstrability has
Mass market representative a significant influence on perceived usefulness of social robots, while for mass market representatives,
Diffusion of innovations perceived enjoyment has a more significant influence on perceived usefulness. The findings indicate
Workplace
that users’ innovation adoption style influences the factors that users consider important in the
usefulness of social robots. Robot developers should take these into account during the FFE innovation
phase.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction is crucial to concentrate on the design of social robots’ func-

Social humanoid robots are being gradually introduced in
workplaces as active partners assisting employees in such roles as
reception assistants, shop assistants, waiters, and even personal
assistants [1–5]. Thus, close collaboration with social robots in
workplaces is creating completely new social situations that
human workers may find challenging and difficult to accept
[6,7]. The transformation and development of social robots into
more collaborative partners can also bring considerable change
in workplaces by introducing more automation [8,9].
Research on introducing robots in the workplace as co-workers
has shown that integrating robots in a team may cause some
issues, as human workers may have difficulties in identifying with
robots as teammates. These issues need to be taken into account
when organizations consider deploying robots in the workplace
in general [10]. Regarding the acceptance of robots at work, it
∗ Corresponding author at: Unit of Industrial Engineering and Management,
Faculty of Management & Business, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 8,
P.O. Box 541, 33014, Finland.
E-mail address: ulla.saari@tuni.fi (U.A. Saari).
tionality, the human–robot interaction (HRI), and collaboration
in workplace environments [11]. For developing these robots, it
is vital for robot developers to understand HRI to ensure that
it is possible for human workers to engage with social robots
that are technically, socially, and emotionally sophisticated [1].
Research has also indicated that in some cases human workers
favor collaborative and autonomous robots rather than controlled
HRI [12].
When social robots engage in social interaction with hu-
mans, the robots use anthropomorphic or human-like capabili-
ties, which are incorporated in robots’ physical design and be-
havior [13]. In workplace environments, as humans work with
social robots, the ways of interacting with robots go beyond
the technical features to the extent that in the design phase
of social robots, developers should also understand human be-
havior, i.e., the expectations and reactions of different kinds of
users regarding robots, namely, factors outlined in technology
acceptance models [14]. Therefore, it is critical that designers
and programmers of social robots understand HRI in collaborative
contexts, how humans behave during the interaction, and how
robots can create experiences that build trust in robots [15].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2022.104033
0921-8890/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al.
Social humanoid robots deviate from earlier generations of robots
to that extent that they can be considered totally new products
and represent radical or disruptive innovations [5]. The actual
technical features of social robots are only one aspect among
the key factors impacting their acceptance. Research on social
robots in home environments has shown that perceived usability
and enjoyment have a positive impact on the acceptance of
robots [16]. There has been a call for more research on the
expectations that different kinds of users in varying situations
and environments have for HRI when more people are familiar
with robots, and they are no longer isolated cases; that is, when
mass market representatives use social robots more widely, for
example, in workplaces [17].
The technology acceptance model (TAM; [18,19] has been
widely used and adapted to examine various kinds of technolo-
gies [20]. The TAM has been commonly applied in empirical
technology acceptance research, and there are multiple variants
of the model. Some scholars consider the earlier versions too
simple and lacking crucial variables and behavioral processes
[14]. The third version of the TAM, i.e., the TAM3, is the latest
version of the model that has been mostly applied in IT projects.
However, its applicability in robotics has been researched less,
although in robotics there are also complex challenges, and the
solutions should help users accomplish multiple complex tasks
[21]. Previous researchers have highlighted that if the TAM is
applied outside the original context where it was developed, the
model should be re-validated and tested in the new context [22].
What has been lacking in the TAM is the perspective of social
processes that consider individual dissimilarities between people
with unique cognitive or motivational drivers to use technol-
ogy [14]. However, the TAM includes factors that are relevant
to workplace activities, attitudes toward technology, past ex-
perience of robots, trust, and perceived usefulness, specifically,
ease of use and the element of enjoyment [23,24]. There has
been a call for more research on the influence of enjoyment on
user acceptance of social robots [25]. Research on dimensions
of affect, such as enjoyment, in HRI has received less attention
than other HRI dimensions [26]. Especially when creating new
kinds of social robots for workplace use, it is important to test
the products with different kinds of users in the early phases of
development to understand their experiences of usefulness and
enjoyment. According to the theory of diffusion of innovations,
users who represent early adopters and mass market users have
different kinds of attitudes [27], and these attitudes should also
be acknowledged when developing social robots.
Research has focused on using the TAM to analyze users’
perceptions of teaching assistant robots and users’ intentions to
use these robots [28]. Recent research extended the TAM with
measures of social responses, such as trusting [29]. In the hospi-
tality sector, research has been conducted on visitors’ intentions
to use social robots in hospitality services [30]. In the workplace
context, research has recently been conducted on risk caretakers’
perceived risk regarding adopting and accepting social robotic
solutions in care facilities for older adults [31]. There has been a
call for more research on different kinds of human–robot relation-
ships and interactions, in various spheres of people’s everyday
life, including workplaces [32]. There is also scant research on the
acceptance of robots outside the social and health care fields [23].
There are still issues with technology acceptance of social robots,
especially in contexts where there is radical change due to the
introduction of social robotics in workplaces [23,33,34]. To our
knowledge, the TAM3 has not been applied among early adopters
and mass market representatives to compare the different dimen-
sions of technology acceptance to provide guidance to social robot
developers in the front-end phase of development with a tested
and applicable model for social robots.
2
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033
The objectives of this study were to empirically test the TAM3
regarding acceptance of social robotics. Based on the findings,
we introduce a reduced version of the TAM3 that is more ap-
plicable for investigating acceptance of social robots. In addition,
we sought to understand how the perceptions of early and late
market segments of social robot users at workplaces differ. The
research was conducted utilizing quantitative research methods.
The paper is divided into the following sections: Section 2
presents the literature relevant to this research. Section 3 de-
scribes the research setting and methodology. Section 4 reports
the results, and Section 5 discusses the relevance of the re-
sults, presents the theoretical and practical implications of the
study, and introduces the limitations and suggestions for future
research.
2. Related literature
2.1. The technology acceptance model (TAM)
The TAM was initially introduced by Davis [18,19] as an appli-
cation of Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action
(TRA). The TAM has been used to test various factors influencing
users’ acceptance of technology, with two important measures—
perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU).
These constructs are defined by indicators that explain users’
acceptance or rejection of new technology. The original TAM has
been criticized for not offering tangible guidance to organizations
for developing technology that would engage users and promote
new technology acceptance and adoption (e.g., [35]).
The first version of the TAM was extended to the TAM2 [36]
and the TAM3 [24]. The TAM3 is an integrated model of tech-
nology acceptance where PEOU includes the following factors:
computer self-efficacy, perception of external control, computer
anxiety, computer playfulness, perceived enjoyment, and objec-
tive usability. The TAM3 includes the social influence and cogni-
tive instrumental processes, as well as perceived usefulness and
its determinants, and the effects of subjective norm, image, job
relevance, output quality, and result demonstrability on perceived
usefulness. The relationships added in the TAM3 include those
describing how experience moderates the relationships between
PEOU and PU, between computer anxiety and PEOU, and between
PEOU and behavioral intention [24].
Previous researchers have applied the TAM3, for example, to
analyze how factory workers perceive social robots and accept
them in the context of human–robot collaboration [37]. The main
issues in this case were the employees’ fear of injury by a robot,
loss of job due to a robot, and general anxiety about robots
in the workplace. To overcome these issues, it is important to
analyze the use and acceptance of novel social robot applications.
Human–robot collaboration has been researched in industrial
production system contexts more than in the social contexts in
workplaces, such as in workplace reception areas or cafeterias
[38].
In the case of social robots, the studies on HRI have mostly
applied the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT) [39] to analyze the acceptance of social robots in the
fields of health care and education [5,40]. However, the UTAUT
and the UTAUT2 [41] incorporate such factors that are not nec-
essarily relevant for a workplace, such as the constructs effort
expectancy and price value [21]. Therefore, the TAM3 can be
considered to be better suited than the UTAUT2 model for test-
ing social robots in workplaces due to the incorporation of the
following constructs: job relevance, output quality, result demon-
strability, self-efficacy, anxiety, playfulness, and enjoyment [24].
However, application of the TAM3 in business contexts has been
limited, and application of the TAM3 in different types of IT
settings has been called for [24,35].
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al.
2.2. Acceptance of social robots
As most people do not interact in their everyday lives with
social robots, they are still considered radical innovations by the
people who interact with them. Thus, when people interact with
robots, they are assessing the robots to decide whether to accept
and adopt them [5,17]. Social robots can be differentiated from
other IT technologies due to their capability to conduct varying
levels of physical interaction with objects or humans via verbal
or non-verbal communication modes [42]. Therefore, there is
reason to question whether the technology acceptance models
designed for IT technologies are fully applicable to social robots.
In general, it has been found that people have an ‘‘anthropocentric
expectancy bias’’ when communicating with human counterparts,
and this expectation is used when interacting and judging the
behavior of humanoid robots [17].
Previous research on HRI focused on prototyping. However,
as social robots are also designed for the mass market, different
kinds of HRI models that go beyond the stereotypes of how
current versions of social robots interact must be developed and
applied [17]. According to the computers as social actors (CASA)
paradigm [43], expectations for and acceptance of new tech-
nology used in social robots can differ from the expectations
people normally have for new technology due to the element of
social interaction [44]. With reference to the CASA paradigm, the
presumption is that people perceive robots to be social actors
with identities, which has led developers to try to incorporate
social elements in robots for people who are not comfortable
with using technology [43,44]. Especially in the case of socially
interactive robots, recognizing them as hedonic systems has been
thought important, therefore the construct of perceived enjoy-
ment is considered to have an impact on technology acceptance
[45–47]. As the safety and trustworthiness requirements are high
for social robots as well, the quality of the HRI must be well
developed, technically, and on the level of social skills [5,48].
Before social robots can be adopted more widely in new en-
vironments and workplaces, such as offices, public buildings, and
stores, the challenges related to implementing social interaction
between social robots and humans must be understood in more
depth. According to Yang et al. [49], there are three considerable
challenges related to the development of social robots: the way
social dynamics is constructed, the learning process of social
norms, and the creation of a robotic mind theory. Especially in
the case of social interaction that can be very complex, research
remains scant, including quantitative analysis of human social
behavior toward new kinds of social robots in new contexts.
In the past decade, there has been an increase in the mar-
ket introduction of social robots that are socially and physically
responsive units that can perform human tasks previously con-
sidered possible only by humans [5]. The adoption of healthcare
robots has become an active area of research [50]. In the con-
text of medical and healthcare services, social robots have been
designed to keep the elderly company and handle deliveries of
medication and meals in hospitals (e.g. [51]). In addition, there
has been research on the adoption of robotic-assisted surgery by
medical personnel [52], and older adults’ acceptance of assistive
robots [46]. In the field of education, some teaching tasks have
been introduced to social robots [40,53,54]. In the context of
students with intellectual disabilities, employees’ and students’
expectations for the robots have been examined [55].
As the field of social robotics has been developing, novel
humanoid social robots have been launched that can comprehend
and interact as humans that are anticipated to be pervasively
incorporated in people’s everyday lives as social agents in dif-
ferent situations [33]. As there will be more social robots in
different contexts, especially in workplaces and public buildings,
3
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033
people will encounter them more in their everyday lives. The
development process of social robots requires testing in the fuzzy
front-end (FFE) phase in addition to later testing and prototyping,
to develop HRI scripts. Therefore, it is critical for researchers
to examine the interaction in various contexts with different
kinds of users and levels of interest in innovative technology
[17]. People assume social robots have the capacity to engage
in social interaction that is meaningful, which requires from
robot developers understanding of the basics of anthropomor-
phic, i.e., human-like features that the robots should portray. This
should be translated in HRI or human–computer interaction (HCI)
that meets the user’s expectations for the robot’s performance.
However, the ideal target is not to create a synthetic human, but
a balanced solution that persuades humans to trust the robotic
systems [13].
2.3. Early adopters and mass market users of technology
There have been high expectations among companies develop-
ing social robots that potential future users in the mass market
would follow enthusiast early adopters and acquire positive at-
titudes toward robots as users, have personal experiences and
see more robots in action in their own familiar environments
[56]. However, research results suggest that although there may
be positive interest in robots, the possible negative impact they
may have in the form of job loss could generate more negative
perceptions of the robots’ actual usefulness [57]. Gnambs and Ap-
pel [58] found that in recent years a negative and more cautious
orientation toward robots has grown, especially in workplace
environments, and even more so toward surgical robots and
autonomously driving vehicles.
When considering the adoption of new technology, there is an
interplay of contextual elements impacting people in
workplaces—internally, externally, and from the technological
perspective [59]. Thus, the adoption process and diffusion of
innovations among different kinds of user groups can be very
different, depending on the type of person. The theory of diffusion
of innovation [27] has been used predominantly to explain the
adoption of technology in organizations and the diffusion process
at the market level among different kinds of adopters. A market
for a specific product can be categorized into market segments
based on the type of adoption rate of the main type of consumers
or users in that segment. The adopter categorization has been
based on the innovativeness of the ideal types in the specific cate-
gory. In the process of the diffusion of innovations, early adopters
are the first to adopt an innovation, and later, they are followed
by users who can be labeled mass market representatives [27,60].
According to Rogers [27] classification, there are five ideal
types of adopter categories: Innovators are among the first 2.5%
of users to accept an innovation. Early adopters consist of ap-
proximately 13.5% of users who serve as role models for other
followers in a local system. The early majority (next 34%), late
majority, (34%), and laggards (16%) can be categorized as later
adopters who accept innovations when their peers have adopted
the innovation [27]. As the adopter categorization is based on
ideal types, it can vary for different technologies and products
[61]. Therefore, the innovator type of adopters in IT may not be
the same for other product categories, for example, social robots.
Even early adopters have been found to share characteristics with
early rejecters, for example, in the case of acceptance of solar
energy systems [62].
The market for social robotics is considered to have growth
potential, as robots are starting to appear in public buildings
and service sectors, for example, in education, health and social
care, domestic services, transportation, and delivery services [63].
Although social robots can operate usefully in different social
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033

contexts, people accept the robots based on personal perspectives

that are not easy to decipher [23]. The introduction of social
robots in new usage contexts in workplaces will set more de-
mands and expectations for the level of sophistication for HRI
[15]. When designing a social robot, robot developers do not
primarily aim for possible resemblance to human form or func-
tionalities, as the robot is inanimate. Instead, the primary focus is
usefulness. However, there is a need to create socially intelligent
features in social robots that respond to humans’ expectations
to facilitate interaction between people and robots [13]. How-
ever, expectations may vary between user groups, depending on
the degree to which the people are interested in and willing
to use new innovative solutions, which is linked to individual
innovativeness [27].
Social robotics research has focused on the way social robots
could be designed, for example, for improving the well-being of
vulnerable consumer groups, such as children and older adults
[64], to assist in remote rehabilitation in areas where there is a
shortage of rehabilitation clinicians and the special circumstances
during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic [65,66], to assist in men-
tal health telemedicine configurations in low- and middle-income
countries without sufficient clinicians [67], and group therapy in
elderly care [68]. Developers must still tackle the challenge of Fig. 1. The TAM3 [24] adapted to social robots.
introducing new social humanoid robots equipped with artificial
intelligence (AI) capabilities to the mass market for wide-scale
benefit. With the current trends, there could be an opportunity to 3.2. Research design and experiment setup
exploit and launch more social robots that could serve different
kinds of users, so that HRI would be normalized and common. A social robot system based on a social humanoid robot called
In addition, in the wider deployment of robots outside industrial ‘‘Pepper’’ launched by SoftBank Robotics in 2015 was under fur-
contexts, social robots must be perceived as useful and reliable ther test development and evaluation at a university laboratory.
before they will be fully accepted [58,69]. According to the company’s website, ‘‘Pepper’’ has been adopted
in approximately 2000 companies as an assistant in reception
areas to welcome, inform, and guide visitors. The robot has been
3. Research setting and methodology ‘‘optimized for human interaction and is able to engage with
people through conversation and his touch screen’’ [70]. Newer
3.1. Research method versions of Pepper deploy AI for emotion recognition in their
interactions with humans [71].
The robot development team conducted an experiment in
The literature review showed that previous researchers did
March 2018 outside the laboratory in the university hallway,
not apply the TAM3 to test the adoption of social robot technol- which students, staff, and visitors pass through to go to the cam-
ogy in the early fuzzy front-end innovation phase. To explore how pus cafeteria. Participants who showed interest in the social robot
applicable the TAM3 is for analyzing the adoption of social robots were given a task to check the lunch menus of the university
on the markets, this study focused on early adopters and mass cafeteria presented by the robot prototype created by the devel-
market representatives according to Rogers [27] classification. To opment team. The participants were instructed to interact with
evaluate the acceptance of technology, we used the TAM3 [24]. In the robot either by speaking out loud or by touching the screen
addition to helping analyze the propensity to accept a technology, with the user interface. After the participants had performed the
the TAM allows to understand the factors that impact acceptance. tasks as instructed, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire.
The main factors of the TAM, perceived ease of use and per-
ceived usefulness of technology, are critical for understanding 3.3. Participants
how employees in workplaces perceive social robots. We re-
worded the determinants for perceived ease of use of computers Data were collected with the questionnaire from 132 end-
so that they refer to social robots: Computer self-efficacy was user participants. All participants had interacted with the robot
modified to robot self-efficacy, computer anxiety to robot anxiety, as instructed. Questionnaires that were not filled out properly
(n = 11) were omitted from the final analysis. The participants
and computer playfulness to robot playfulness [cf. 24, p. 279].
were divided into two market segments based on their answers to
The modified TAM3 for social robots is based on the relationships
questions regarding their individual innovativeness: early market
in Venkatesh and Bala [24], and there are no crossover effects
representatives, consisting of early adopters and innovators, and
between the constructs PEOU and PU; that is, they do not in- mass market representatives, who included Rogers [27] other cat-
fluence each other (Fig. 1). The following TAM3 constructs were egorizations of innovation adopters (early majority, late majority,
not included in this study: job relevance (the context of the test and laggards) (see Table 1).
was not relevant to the job of the people participating in the In the dataset, there are only a few instances where the re-
experiment), perceptions of external control (the robot used in spondents have not revealed their education (2 respondents) or
the experiment was not tested as a part of a system, and thus, occupation (1 respondent), and this is not seen as creating any
was not under external control), and voluntariness (the study bias in the reporting. For the gender, there are 19 respondents
participants were volunteers). who ‘‘Prefer not to say’’ their gender (15.7%), but the majority
4
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033

Table 1 4. Results
Participants’ sociodemographic information (N = 121).
Gender n Percentage 4.1. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
Male 55 45.5%
Female 47 38.8%
To evaluate the adapted TAM3 with the collected data on
Prefer not to say 19 15.7%
social robots, we utilized partial least squares structural equation
Educational degree
modeling (PLS-SEM) [76]. PLS-SEM is a multivariate data analysis
No university degree 44 36.4%
B.Sc. 44 36.4% method widely applied in the social and behavioral sciences [77],
M.Sc. 24 19.8% as well as in information systems research [78]. PLS-SEM is often
PhD 7 5.8% employed when the assessed model is complex [77]. In addition,
Prefer not to say 2 1.7% in confirmatory and explanatory research, a measurement model
Occupation is estimated by focusing on the assessment of the constructs
Student 52 43.0%
in a structural model. According to Hair et al. [79, p.23], the
Employed 54 44.6%
Student and employed 14 11.6% PLS-SEM approach is a suitable method when the objective of
Prefer not to say 1 0.8% the study is to predict, either the target constructs or what are
Age the main constructs influencing the target constructs. PLS-SEM
<20 years 6 5.0% can also be used when a structural model is complex, including
20–29 years 65 53.7% many constructs and many indicators, as we have in the Fig. 1
30–39 years 26 21.5% model. In addition, PLS-SEM is suitable when the sample size
40–49 years 18 14.9%
50–59 years 6 5.0%
is small and in case the data are nonnormally distributed. The
overall complexity of a structural model has little influence on
Adopter category
Early adopter 39 32.2% the sample size requirements for PLS-SEM [79]. The sample size
Mass market representative 82 67.8% recommendations for PLS-SEM to achieve a statistical power of
80% for constructs that have a maximum of 4 arrows (inde-
pendent variables) pointing at it (which is the case both in the
more elaborate version (Fig. 1) and reduced version (Fig. 3) of
have reported their gender (45.5% are male, and 38.8% female). the model) are the following: The required sample size for a
To our understanding, in this case the division of the respondents
significance level of 1% and minimum R2 0.25 is 58, and for R2
into three categories under the gender option is not critical, as in
0.50 is 24; and with a significance level of 10% the minimum R2
the recent years, there has been increasing discussion on genders
0.25 requires a sample size of 34 and R2 0.50 requires a sample
not being distributed only into two genders. Recent research
size of 15 [79, p.26]. This indicates that the sample sizes we have
guidelines even urge to go beyond a dichotomous view of the
used for testing the models in this paper are more than sufficient
concepts of gender when reporting the participants’ background
for an exploratory study.
[72]. As the main criteria in the comparison is based only on the
We used SmartPLS 3 software to estimate the model [80]. In
innovativeness of the respondents, we are not explicitly studying
the significance testing, we applied the bootstrapping procedure
gender or gender differences, therefore we are merely describ-
with 5000 samples. We checked the measurement models and
ing the demographic characteristics of the sample so that other
then focused on the structural model [77].
researchers can evaluate the possible representativeness of the
The data were analyzed for three data sets: all participants
research.
(N = 121), early adopters (EA; n = 39; 32.2%), and mass market
3.4. Variables in the TAM representatives (MM; n = 82; 67.8%). Participants who responded
5 or higher for the variable indicating willingness to adopt in-
All the constructs in the TAM3 [24] adapted for social robots novative products were grouped as EA, and participants who
(Fig. 1) and for categorizing participants according to market responded <5 were grouped as MM. A 7-point Likert scale was
segmentation [27,73] were estimated with multiple measure- used for response options for the variable (where 5 is ‘‘Somewhat
ment items in reflective measurement models [74]. Based on agree’’, 6 ‘‘Moderately agree’’, and 7 ‘‘Strongly agree’’).
the model, we used a structured questionnaire that covered the
constructs and the underlying measurement items (Table 2). The 4.2. Assessment of the measurement model based on the original
responses on a 7-point Likert scale ranged from strongly disagree TAM3 adapted to robots
(1) to strongly agree (7). Some of the measurement items in
the TAM3 were adapted and modified based on the experiment In the assessment of the measurement model, we used proce-
setting. Some items were removed due to their irrelevance to dures described by Hair et al. [77,79]. When assessing reflective
the experiment. The questionnaire was also translated into the measurement models, the following criteria are checked: item
local language of the university to ensure that the sample in- reliability, internal consistency (composite reliability), conver-
cluded visitors and non-academic staff from the university in gent validity (average variance extracted; AVE), and discriminant
addition to students. The major change in the original TAM3 validity (heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations; HTMT). To
questionnaire topics concerned rewording of items that refer to confirm item reliability, the item loadings are checked to verify
‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘system’’ to ‘‘robot’’. Another important change the variance shared between individual item variables and the
was the addition of more detailed instructions for the tasks for construct. The threshold value for item loadings in a reflective
the participants. The TAM3 items omitted from the questionnaire measurement model is .70 [76].
referred to constructs that were not relevant for this study. The loadings for the following items measuring the constructs
During the analysis of the results, the participants were di- result demonstrability (RES), robot self-efficacy (CSE), and robot
vided into two categories, early adopters and mass media rep- playfulness (CPLAY) were below .40: RES4, CSE3, CSE4, and
resentatives, based on their innovativeness. The market split was CPLAY4, which required that they be removed from the model as
based on an item (‘‘I’m often first to adopt an innovative product’’) they were not necessary for measuring the applicability of TAM3
measuring the participants’ attitudes toward new technologies in the case of social robots. The constructs RES, CSE, and CPLAY
[27,73,75]. were explained by the remaining items. After we eliminated the
5
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033

Table 2
Item loadings for the measurement models adapted to robots for the three groups.
Construct Item Loading All (N = 121) Loading EA (n = 39) Loading MM (n = 82)
Subjective Norm People who influence my behavior think that I should .774 .698 .805
experiment with the robot. (SN1)
People who are important to me think that I should try out .927 .918 .936
the robot. (SN2)
Image People in my organization who use the robot have more .793 .716 .853
prestige than those who do not. (IMG1)
People in my organization who use the robot have a high .815 .900 .780
profile. (IMG2)
Testing the robot is a status symbol in my organization. .729 .871 .551
(IMG3)
Output Quality The quality of the output I get using the robot is high. (OUT1) .841 .753 .869
I have no problem with the quality of the robot’s output. .807 .829 .810
(OUT2)
I rate the results from the robot to be excellent. (OUT3) .904 .919 .879
Result Demonstrability I have no difficulty telling others about the results of using .637 .728 .573
the robot. (RES1)
I believe I could communicate to others the consequences of .736 .752 .709
using the robot. (RES2)
The results of using the robot are apparent to me. (RES3) .814 .877 .803
Robot Self-Efficacy I could investigate the lunch menus using the .908 .909 .926
robot . . .
. . . if there was no one around to tell me what to do as I
used the robot. (CSE1)
. . . if I had just the robot’s built-in help facility for assistance. .837 .875 .785
(CSE2)
Robot Anxiety Working with a robot makes me nervous. (CANX2) .899 .813 .908
Robots make me feel uncomfortable. (CANX3) .873 .703 .896
Robots make me feel uneasy. (CANX4) .830 .912 .822
Robot Playfulness The following questions ask you how you would characterize .816 .830 .561
yourself when you use robots:
. . spontaneous (CPLAY1)
. . . creative (CPLAY2) .915 .858 .991
. . . playful (CPLAY3) .834 .897 .463
Perceived Enjoyment I find using the robot to be enjoyable. (ENJ1) .886 .941 .863
The actual process of using the robot is pleasant. (ENJ2) .918 .940 .936
I have fun using the robot. (ENJ3) .729 .899 .485
Perceived Usefulness Using the robot improves my performance in my task .842 .872 .821
investigating the lunch menus. (PU1)
Using the robot enhances my effectiveness in my task .844 .824 .842
investigating the lunch menus. (PU3)
I find the robot to be useful in my task investigating the .891 .868 .902
lunch menus. (PU4)
Perceived Ease of Use My interaction with the robot is clear and understandable. .769 .842 .702
(PEOU1)
Interacting with the robot does not require a lot of my mental .632 .729 .579
effort. (PEOU2)
I find the robot to be easy to use. (PEOU3) .798 .827 .797
I find it easy to get the robot to do what I want it to do. .830 .903 .777
(PEOU4)
Behavioral Intention Assuming the robot would be permanently at the setup under .905 .887 .909
testing . .
. . . I would use the robot if it would be accessible. (BI1)
. . . I might use the robot if it would be accessible. (BI2) .884 .893 .874
. . . I would plan to use the robot in the future. (BI3) .908 .879 .916

All = All participants; EA = Early adopters; MM = Mass market representatives.

items with loading below .40, only two items had loadings that
were clearly below the critical threshold. Thus, the model had
sufficient reliability. We kept the two items that had loadings
under .70, as they were still close to .60 which is also considered
acceptable [79]. The loadings for all items in the measurement
model were acceptable for all groups (Table 2).
Instead of using Cronbach’s alpha for assessing internal con-
sistency reliability, we used composite reliability (CR) to assess
the internal consistency reliability of the reflective constructs,
because it is not as sensitive to the number of measurement
items on the scale [79]. The threshold for acceptable CR values
is between .60 and .70, while CR values between .70 and .90 are
satisfactory. CR values that are above .90 or even .95 indicate that
the item variables measure a similar aspect; thus, one of the items
is redundant and not recommended as a measure of the same
construct [79]. In the case of the TAM3 adapted for robots, the CR
6
values for most of the items were within the recommendation of
.60–.90, with only a few exceptions. A few of the CR values for
isolated cases were slightly above .90, but they were still below
the ultimate recommended threshold of .95 (Table 3).
The AVE criteria were used to assess convergent validity of
reflective constructs. In the TAM3, the AVE values were above
the threshold of .50, and only for one item measuring result
demonstrability was the AVE value slightly below .50 (.492 for
the MM group). In this case, the value is acceptable to keep the
item (Table 3).
To measure discriminant validity, we used the HTMT ratio of
correlations [81]. In the HTMT, discriminant validity is verified, as
nearly all HTMT values are below the <.85 requirement which is
the conservative threshold value. Only for Result Demonstrability
-> Perceived Enjoyment was the value slightly above 0.85, but
still clearly below .95. For Perceived Ease of Use -> Behavioral
Intention, the HTMT value for the EA group was above .95.
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033

Table 3
Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for the constructs.
Construct CR - All CR - EA CR - MM AVE - All AVE - EA AVE - MM
Subjective Norm .842 .796 .865 .729 .665 .763
Image .823 .871 .778 .608 .694 .547
Output Quality .888 .874 .889 .725 .699 .728
Result Demonstrability .775 .830 .741 .537 .622 .492
Robot Self-efficacy .865 .886 .848 .763 .796 .737
Robot Anxiety .901 .853 .908 .753 .662 .768
Robot Playfulness .891 .897 .732 .733 .744 .504
Perceived Enjoyment .884 .948 .820 .720 .859 .619
Perceived Usefulness .895 .891 .891 .739 .731 .732
Perceived Ease of Use .845 .896 .808 .579 .685 .517
Behavioral Intention .927 .917 .927 .809 .786 .810

All = All participants; EA = Early adopters; MM = Mass market representatives.

Table 4
Path coefficients (β ) and significance levels (p-value) for the three groups.
Path All β All p EA β EA p MM β MM p
Image > Perceived Usefulness .264 <.001 .299 .023 .229 .041
Output Quality -> Perceived Usefulness .412 <.001 .509 .034 .440 .001
Perceived Ease of Use -> Behavioral Intention .119 .228 .285 .159 .048 .644
Perceived Enjoyment -> Perceived Ease of Use .574 <.001 .661 <.001 .413 <.001
Perceived Usefulness -> Behavioral Intention .563 <.001 .396 .009 .607 <.001
Result Demonstrability -> Perceived Usefulness .262 .002 .496 <.001 .169 .128
Robot Anxiety -> Perceived Ease of Use −.194 .023 −.109 .540 −.306 .004
Robot Playfulness -> Perceived Ease of Use −.187 .053 −.108 .483 −.043 .817
Robot Self-Efficacy -> Perceived Ease of Use .151 .050 .193 .129 .118 .259
Subjective Norm -> Behavioral Intention .109 .183 .195 .170 .075 .494
Subjective Norm -> Image .400 <.001 .409 .042 .398 <.001
Subjective Norm -> Perceived Usefulness −.019 .815 .008 .953 −.041 .706

EA = Early adopters; MM = Mass market representatives.

4.3. Assessment of the structural model based on the original TAM3

In assessing the structural model, we followed the procedures

described by Hair et al. [77,79]. We checked the following criteria
first: collinearity with the variance inflation factor (VIF), the sig-
nificance, and relevance of the path coefficients. For checking the
VIF values, a bootstrapping procedure was run with 5000 rounds
for all the data sets individually. All VIF values clearly passed the
<5.00 criterion set as a threshold; therefore, collinearity is not a
critical issue for this model [79].
The three groups (all respondents, EA, and MM) were sim-
ilar and had significant paths (p < .05) between the following
constructs: Image -> Perceived Usefulness, Output Quality -> Per-
ceived Usefulness, Perceived Enjoyment -> Perceived Ease of Use,
Perceived Usefulness -> Behavioral Intention, Subjective Norm -
> Image, and Robot Self-Efficacy -> Perceived Ease of Use. The
path coefficients differed for the EA and MM groups in the case of
the following paths: Significant for EA: Result Demonstrability ->
Perceived Usefulness, and Negatively significant for MM: Robot
Anxiety -> Perceived Ease of Use. The path coefficients were not
significant for any of the groups for the following paths: Perceived
Ease of Use -> Behavioral Intention, Perceived Ease of Use ->
Perceived Usefulness, Robot Playfulness -> Perceived Ease of Use,
Subjective Norm -> Behavioral Intention, and Subjective Norm -> Fig. 2. Path coefficients and R2 values for all participants (N = 121). Note: ***
Perceived Usefulness (Fig. 2; Table 4). p < .05, ns. = non-significant.

The values of the coefficients of determination (R2 ) for the

three data sets were verified to estimate the predictive power
of the model. When R2 values are assessed, the guideline is that
the values depend on the level of complexity in the model and
the field. In marketing research, R2 values that are closer to .75
refer to substantial predictive power, those closer to .50 refer to
moderate predictive power, and those closer to .25 refer to weak
predictive power [79]. The average predictive power is moderate
for nearly all constructs except for image (Table 5).
In case an exogeneous construct is left out from a model,
the resulting change in the R2 value is referred as the f 2 effect
7
size, that can be used to assess the level of impact the deleted
construct has on another endogenous construct. Effect size values
of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are considered respectively small, medium,
and large [79]. The effect sizes (f 2 ) were analyzed for the three
data sets, are consistent with the other criteria reported above.
See Table 6.
The Q 2 values for the endogenous constructs (behavioral in-
tention, image, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness)
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al.
Table 5
Coefficients of determination (R2 ) values for all participants, early adopters, and
mass market representatives.
Construct All participants EA
Behavioral Intention .437 (**) .500 (**)
Image .160 .167
Perceived Ease of Use .450 (**) .551 (**)
Perceived Usefulness .430 (**) .619 (**)
Fig. 3. Conceptual model for a reduced TAM3 adapted to social robots with path
coefficients and R2 values for all participants (N = 121). Note: *** p < .05, ns. =
non-significant.
were all above zero, which is an indication of the predictive rele-
vance of the latent variables. However, in the case of the q2 effect
sizes, for path coefficients that did not have significant values, the
q2 effect sizes were below the recommended threshold criteria.
4.4. New reduced TAM3 for social robots
4.4.1. Conceptual model
Due to results above indicating that the TAM3 could not be
fully adapted to social robots, we removed the path coefficients
that were not significant. Based on the findings from the testing of
the TAM3 adapted to social robots, we reduced the TAM3 to a new
model in which the following paths were removed: Perceived
Ease of Use -> Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use ->
Behavioral Intention, Subjective Norm -> Behavioral Intention,
and Subjective Norm -> Perceived Usefulness.
The following constructs were also removed: perceived ease
of use, as it did not have a significant influence on behavioral
intention for any of the groups, and robot anxiety and robot
playfulness, for which the effect sizes on perceived ease of use
were small, or there was no effect. The constructs linked to
perceived ease of use are instead linked to perceived usefulness
that acts as a mediator for behavioral intention. However, the
construct robot self-efficacy did not have any significant influence
on perceived usefulness for any of the data sets; therefore, we
removed this construct from the model.
This led to a conceptual model for a reduced TAM3 adapted to
social robots (Fig. 3).
Furthermore, we developed hypotheses to support the re-
duced model and grounded them in previous literature relevant
to the TAM3 model. (Table 7).
4.4.2. Assessment of the measurement model of the reduced TAM3
for social robots
To confirm item reliability for the reduced model, we verified
the loadings to ensure that the recommended threshold value for
item loadings [76] was achieved. As none of the loadings were
below 0.4, there was no need to remove any items from the
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033
MM
.415 (**)
.158
.424 (**)
.352 (*)
Fig. 4. Path coefficients and R2 values for mass market representatives (MM;
n = 82), early adopters (EA; n = 39). Note: ***p < 0.05, ns. = non-significant.
model. Items that have loadings under 0.70 can also considered
be acceptable [79]. The loadings for all the items in the mea-
surement model were now acceptable for all constructs in the
reduced model, for all respondents, including the EA and MM
groups (Table 7). For only Perceived Enjoyment (ENJ3) and Result
Demonstrability (RES1), the loadings for All were slightly below
.70, and for the MM group the loadings were slightly below .50
and .60, respectively. However, these values are still acceptable
(Table 8).
The reliability and convergent validity were evaluated by ver-
ifying the AVE and CR values for the three groups. All but one
of the AVE values for the reduced model were above the critical
threshold value of .50: For the MM group, Result Demonstrability
was slightly below .50. Most of the items fulfilled the requirement
for internal consistency, and the CR was not higher than the
.90 requirement. Only four of the items were slightly higher;
however, they were not higher than .95 (Table 9).
Discriminant validity was established, as all but one of the
HTMT values were well below the. 85 requirement. Only for
Result Demonstrability -> Perceived Enjoyment was the value
slightly above .875.
4.4.3. Assessment of the structural model of the reduced TAM3 for
social robots
All the VIF values are well below 5.00 criterion; the highest
value was 2.688. Therefore, collinearity is not a critical issue for
the reduced model [79]. When the model was tested with all par-
ticipants data set and the MM data set, the path coefficient Result
Demonstrability -> Perceived Usefulness was the only one that
was not significant. However, when the model was tested with
the EA data set, the path coefficient for Result Demonstrability
-> Perceived Usefulness was significant (.446). However, the path
coefficient for Perceived Enjoyment -> Perceived Usefulness was
not significant for the EA group (–.119), but the path coefficient
it was significant for the all participants group and the MM group
(Table 10). As the R2 values for all constructs were closer to .50
than .25, the model has predictive power [79] (Fig. 4).
When the f 2 effect sizes for the three data groups were ana-
lyzed, for all participants, the effect for PU -> Behavioral Intention
was well above the threshold for a large effect at .706, for the
EA group, the effect was .655, and for the MM group, the effect
was .688. For all participants, the effect sizes were small for
Perceived Enjoyment -> PU (.091), Image -> PU (.110), and Output
Quality -> PU (.091), while for Result Demonstrability -> PU the
effect was minimal (.014). In the case of EA, the effect sizes for
Image -> PU (.236) and Result Demonstrability -> PU (.276) were
between medium and large effects, but there is only a minimal
8
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033

Table 6
The effect sizes for the paths (f 2 ).
Path All participants EA MM
Image -> Perceived Usefulness .099 (*) .171 (**) .068 (*)
Output Quality -> Perceived Usefulness .138 (*) .175 (**) .164 (**)
Perceived Ease of Use -> Behavioral Intention .021 (*) .116 (*) .004 ( †)
Perceived Ease of Use -> Perceived Usefulness .002 ( †) .068 (*) .000 (†)
Perceived Enjoyment -> Perceived Ease of Use .411 (***) .553 (***) .215 (**)
Perceived Usefulness -> Behavioral Intention .448 (***) .210 (**) .539 (***)
Result Demonstrability -> Perceived Usefulness .075 (*) .324 (**) .031 (*)
Robot Anxiety -> Perceived Ease of Use .057 (*) .023 (*) .116 (*)
Robot Playfulness -> Perceived Ease of Use .049 (*) .017 (†) .003 ( †)
Robot Self-Efficacy -> Perceived Ease of Use .035 (*) .059 (*) .021 (*)
Subjective Norm -> Behavioral Intention .019 ( †) .059 (*) .009 (†)
Subjective Norm -> Image .191 (**) .201 (**) .188 (**)
Subjective Norm -> Perceived Usefulness .000 ( †) .000 ( †) .002 ( †)

† = no effect, * = small effect, ** = medium effect, and *** = large effect.

Table 7
Hypotheses with reference to supporting literature.
Hypothesis Supporting references
H1: The image of a person using robots influences positively how useful a [24]
robot is perceived.
H2: The output quality from using robots influences positively how useful a [24]
robot is perceived.
H3: The demonstrability of the results from using robots influences positively [24]
how useful a robot is perceived.
H4: The perceived enjoyment found in using robots influences positively how [25,45–47]
useful a robot is perceived.
H5: The perceived usefulness of robots has a positive influence on the future [23,24]
potential use of a robot.

Table 8
Item loadings for the measurement models of the new reduced model.
Construct Item Loading All (N = 121) Loading EA (n = 39) Loading MM (n = 82)
Image People in my organization who use the robot have more .770 .719 .831
prestige than those who do not. (IMG1)
People in my organization who use the robot have a high .780 .886 .738
profile. (IMG2)
Testing the robot is a status symbol in my organization. .781 .879 .638
(IMG3)
Output Quality The quality of the output I get using the robot is high. (OUT1) .841 .753 .869
I have no problem with the quality of the robot’s output. .806 .829 .809
(OUT2)
I rate the results from the robot to be excellent. (OUT3) .904 .919 .880
Result Demonstrability I have no difficulty telling others about the results of using .638 .728 .574
the robot. (RES1)
I believe I could communicate to others the consequences of .736 .753 .710
using the robot. (RES2)
The results of using the robot are apparent to me. (RES3) .814 .877 .803
Perceived Enjoyment I find using the robot to be enjoyable. (ENJ1) .905 .943 .884
The actual process of using the robot is pleasant. (ENJ2) .925 .945 .923
I have fun using the robot. (ENJ3) .679 .890 .478
Perceived Usefulness Using the robot improves my performance in my task .839 .872 .815
investigating the lunch menus. (PU1)
Using the robot enhances my effectiveness in my task .849 .823 .848
investigating the lunch menus. (PU3)
I find the robot to be useful in my task investigating the .890 .870 .902
lunch menus. (PU4)
Behavioral Intention Assuming the robot would be permanently at the setup under .905 .891 .910
testing . .
. . . I would use the robot if it would be accessible. (BI1)
. . . I might use the robot if it would be accessible. (BI2) .881 .887 .873
. . . I would plan to use the robot in the future. (BI3) .911 .879 .916

All = All participants; EA = Early adopters; MM = Mass market representatives.

effect for Perceived Enjoyment -> PU (.016). For the MM group,
for Perceived Enjoyment -> PU, the effect size (.323) was nearly
at the large effect level (.35), however, the effect sizes are small
for Image -> PU (.085), Output Quality -> PU (.112), and for Result
Demonstrability -> PU, there was hardly no effect (.005).
The Q 2 values for the endogenous constructs Behavioral In-
tention and Perceived Usefulness were above zero, which is an
indication of the predictive relevance of the latent variables.
9
This was also the case for the q2 effect sizes where the path
coefficients had significant values.
Based on recommendations for PLS-SEM to achieve statistical
power [79], it can be stated that for the MM representatives the
significance level is on the level of 1%, and for the EA group the
significance level is at 10%. For this reason, the bootstrapping
method is used to further test the significance with additional
5000 samples. The results from the bootstrapping indicate that
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033

Table 9
Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for the constructs.
Construct CR, All CR, EA CR, MM AVE, All AVE, EA AVE, MM
Image (IMG) .820 .870 .782 .603 .692 .547
Output Quality (OUT) .888 .874 .889 .725 .699 .728
Result Demonstrability (RES) .775 .830 .741 .537 .622 .492
Perceived Enjoyment (ENJ) .879 .948 .821 .712 .858 .620
Perceived Usefulness (PU) .895 .891 .891 .739 .731 .732
Behavioral Intention (BI) .927 .916 .927 .808 .785 .809

All = All participants; EA = Early adopters; MM = Mass market representatives.

Table 10
Path coefficients (β ) and significance levels (p-value) for the three groups.
Path All β All p EA β EA p MM β MM p
H1: Image -> Perceived Usefulness .247 <.001 .339 .001 .206 .008
H2: Output Quality -> Perceived Usefulness .278 .002 .323 .022 .284 .002
H3: Result Demonstrability -> Perceived Usefulness .110 .149 .446 .001 - .066 .459
H4: Perceived Enjoyment -> Perceived Usefulness .300 .001 -.119 .411 .513 <.001
H5: Perceived Usefulness -> Behavioral Intention .643 <.001 .629 <.001 .639 <.001

EA = Early adopters; MM = Mass market representatives.

the results of this exploratory study are of significant relevance
and justifies the call for more research to validate the findings
with a larger sample size in future research. The minimum sample
size has been fulfilled in this study to ensure that the results from
the PLS-SEM analyses are robust, and the model is generalizable.
5. Discussion and conclusions
In this study, one objective was to test how applicable the
TAM3 [24] is in the context of social robots. The other objective
was to analyze how early adopters’ and mass market representa-
tives’ acceptance of social robots differs [27]. Based on the results
from testing the original TAM3 adapted to robots, a reduced
model was introduced, with similarities and differences between
the two types of innovation adopters. The reduced version of the
TAM3 focuses on perceived usefulness which is crucial in work
environments. The context is the FFE innovation phase, where
robot developers test new robot solutions with new users. To get
a more comprehensive view of the potential success of the novel
robot solution, testing with different kinds of users is crucial.
First, we discuss the generalizability of the reduced TAM3
model for both kinds of innovation adopters, the early adopters
(EA) and mass market representatives (MM). Hypotheses 1, 2, and
5 are all supported for the full data set. This indicates that gen-
erally ‘‘The image of a person using robots influences positively
how useful a robot is perceived’’ (H1) and that ‘‘The output quality
from using robots influences positively how useful a robot is
perceived’’ (H2), and also that ‘‘The perceived usefulness of robots
has a positive influence on the future potential use of a robot’’
(H5). This is in line with the TAM3 literature [24] indicating that
there are some common dimensions that apply to the technology
acceptance of different kinds of technology, such as computers
that were the focus originally in TAM3 and in this study so-
cial robots. This is also an important finding for technology and
social robot developers to focus on the output quality as well
as showcasing the use of technology with the help of different
kinds of people to build a positive image of technology users.
Additionally, it should be highlighted, that understandably the
perceived usefulness and benefits from using a robot will have
an impact on the future use of social robots among people who
have tested one at some point [23].
After further testing the model with the two data sets sepa-
rately (EA and MM), the results indicate that perceived enjoyment
has a significant influence on perceived usefulness in the case
10
of the mass market representatives (H4), while for the early
adopters the element of enjoyment is not significant. In this case,
it is important to understand that mass market representatives
seek more enjoyment related to their work, so that the use of
the robot is enjoyable, pleasant, and even fun. In the literature,
with reference to the CASA paradigm, people are considered to
perceive robots as social actors with identities; therefore, social
elements in robots are developed to ease their use [43,44]. In
addition, social robots have also been viewed as hedonic systems,
and the construct Perceived Enjoyment has been found to influ-
ence technology acceptance [45]. However, early adopters were
differentiated from the mass market representatives by result
demonstrability (H3). Early adopters consider it important that
they can tell others about the robot, communicate about its use,
and that the results from using the robot are apparent, which is
fully in line with the drivers for technology acceptance included
in the TAM3 model [24].
The findings indicate that participants’ innovation adoption
style affected the factors that users considered important when
they assessed the usefulness of social robots, and robot devel-
opers should consider these styles during the FFE innovation
phase. For both adopter groups, image and output quality had a
significant impact on perceived usefulness, which is important to
consider in all phases of the introduction of social robots on the
market. This may have a strong impact on the successful intro-
duction of social robots in workplaces. The findings also provide
valuable information on the applicability of the TAM3 in social
robot design. Robots may need to be introduced to workplaces in
stages, so that the workforce gets used to working with robots.
Thus, introducing social robots in simple tasks in the workplace
environment, such as in guidance tasks in the reception area or
cafeteria, or providing light entertainment, can be good places to
start.
Regarding the constructs that were dropped out from the orig-
inal TAM3 model to create the reduced model adapted to social
robots, perhaps perceived ease of use is not critical for adoption
and interaction with social robots. It could be that participants
did not consider themselves users when social robots perform
without human guidance, and the participants did not operate the
robots. When robots are independent and have been programmed
to interact, humans are similar to ‘‘interactors’’ who then consider
the ease of the interaction rather than ease of use; that is, more
research on the perceived ease of interaction with social robots is
needed. In the reduced model, the constructs linked to perceived
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al.
ease of use in the original model were all tested as constructs
impacting perceived usefulness.
According to the results, perceived usefulness had a significant
influence on participants’ behavioral intentions. These findings
are in line with the original TAM3 research results. However,
the factors influencing the perceived usefulness vary between the
innovation adopter types. When introducing the first versions of
a new social robot in the market, to attract early adopters’ accep-
tance, robot developers should focus on creating such features
that allow early adopters get an impression of result demon-
strability (i.e., so they can understand and see the features and
functionality of the robot clearly which will then allow them
to communicate about the use of robots to others and show-
case that the results from using the robot are apparent). When
early adopters acting as influencers in the market have explained
robots’ functionality to other potential users who are then mass
market representatives, new versions of the robot should be
released in the market. To ensure mass market adopters per-
ceive the robots as useful, the second version of the social robot
should include features and functionality that increase perceived
enjoyment among mass market adopters. This requires that they
consider the interaction with the social robot enjoyable, pleasant,
and fun.
Future workplaces will be different, as the nature of work is
changing with technological advancements in ways of working
and as a result of the development of new kinds of jobs [2].
Recent research indicated that in the future more AI solutions will
be introduced in workplaces, and human workers will cooperate
more with social humanoid robots instead of having them replace
the human workforce [82]. Researchers have shown that humans
are content to work with robots if they are not in superior or
in leading roles but in assisting roles. In these situations when
a robot is a follower, it is often considered competent and intel-
ligent for the task [32]. Especially in such situations as created
by the COVID-19 crisis, with a risk of spreading the infection
in workplaces where active social interaction is required, there
could be an opportunity to make use of more social robots in
work environments. However, the most common robots in work-
places are industrial robots that are usually placed in different
spaces than where human employees operate due to safety pre-
cautions. With the development in the field of social robotics,
more interactive social robots have been introduced to work-
places to work closer with human workers [10,23,83]. There could
also be potential to extend social robots to workplaces where
there are multiple human encounters and touch points where
there is a risk of getting infected. Currently especially in hospitals,
smart healthcare management systems could be extended with
social robots assisting in the simple healthcare services, such as,
diagnosis and monitoring of patients’ simple health indicators
(for example, body temperature, heart rate) and measurements of
room humidity, carbon level and CO2 gases in healthcare facilities
[84].
This study had several limitations. The research setting was
artificially designed outside a research laboratory on a university
campus, although individuals outside the academic community
also participated in the experiment. Thus, the design incorporated
representatives who truly can be considered mass market rep-
resentatives. As this research is highly explorative, the sample
size is fairly small, and even though it does give an indication
of validity of the model, more research with larger sample sizes
is still called for. In addition, future research should investigate
how the two innovation adopter types perceive social robots in
different kinds of working environments and situations, as well
as different levels of cooperation. The tasks in the experiment
were simple, and the development team was present to help
participants with possible problems, technical or otherwise; in
11
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033
real-world work contexts, interactions that require cooperation
related to work tasks with social robots may require human
participants to perform more complex tasks in cooperation with
a robot. Therefore, future research should focus on doing more
testing in real-world work environments. Finally, due to the small
number of participants in the early adopter group, the reliabil-
ity and validity of the results compared to those for the mass
market representatives should be verified with a larger group of
participants, so that the number of participants in both groups of
adopter types would be even. Future studies should also develop
further appropriate indicators for measuring perceived ease of
interaction with social robots, which would allow to refine a more
applicable TAM for social robots in workplaces.
In the FFE innovation phase, new product initiatives require
special attention and input from various perspectives within the
team as well as from potential target users [85–87]. Active align-
ment and testing according to potential user requirements can
help reduce major risks and uncertainties [88] and have a strong
positive influence on the innovativeness and financial success
of a product [89,90]. However, there should be a balance and
an understanding of the relevant features to be implemented as
fulfilling all user needs and requirements often is not feasible
[91]. Therefore, the results show that there is an opportunity
to divide markets into early and late adopters and inquire their
differences in preferences and acceptance behavior.
These results pave the way for interesting and fruitful research
avenues in further investigating the differences in adoption be-
havior between adopter categories, and experimental setups for
testing social robotics and acceptance of different adopter cate-
gories. Furthermore, theoretical explanations for differing accep-
tance factors should be investigated in future research.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] S. Bankins, P. Formosa, When AI meets PC: Exploring the implications of
workplace social robots and a human–robot psychological contract, Eur.
J. Work Organ. Psychol. 29 (2) (2020) 215–229, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1359432X.2019.1620328.
[2] S.R. Barley, B.A. Bechky, F.J. Milliken, The changing nature of work: Careers,
identities, and work lives in the 21st century, Acad. Manag. Discov. 3 (2)
(2017) 111–115, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amd.2017.0034.
[3] N. Beheshtian, K. Kaipainen, K. Kähkönen, A. Ahtinen, Color game: A
collaborative social robotic game for icebreaking – towards the design of
robotic ambiences as part of smart building services, in: Proceedings of the
23rd International Conference on Academic Mindtrek, 2020, ACM., 2020,
pp. 10–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3377290.3377292.
[4] T. Park, How we’ll stereotype our robot coworkers, Harv. Bus. Rev.
(2014) October 02, 2014. https://hbr.org/2014/10/how-well-stereotype-
our-robot-coworkers.
[5] N. Piçarra, J.C. Giger, Predicting intention to work with social robots at
anticipation stage: Assessing the role of behavioral desire and anticipated
emotions, Comput. Hum. Behav. 86 (2018) 129–146, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2018.04.026.
[6] P.A. Hancock, D.R. Billings, K.E. Schaefer, J.Y. Chen, E.J. De Visser, R.
Parasuraman, A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot
interaction, Hum. Factors 53 (5) (2011) 517–527, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0018720811417254.
[7] T.B. Sheridan, Human–robot interaction: Status and challenges, Hum. Fac-
tors 58 (4) (2016) 525–532, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720816644364.
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al.
[8] S. Warta, K. Kapalo, A. Best, S. Fiore, Similarity, complementarity, and
agency in HRI: Theoretical issues in shifting the perception of robots from
tools to teammates, in: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society 2016 Annual Meeting, 2016, pp. 1230–1234, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/1541931213601287.
[9] World Economic Forum, The future of jobs report 2020, 2020, https:
//www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020.
[10] N. Savela, M. Kaakinen, N. Ellonen, A. Oksanen, Sharing a work team with
robots: The negative effect of robot co-workers on in-group identification
with the work team, Comput. Hum. Behav. 115 (2021) 106585, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106585.
[11] C. Breazeal, A. Takanishi, T. Kobayashi, Social robots that interact
with people, in: B. Siciliano, O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer Handbook of
Robotics, Springer., 2008, pp. 1349–1369, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
540-30301-5_59.
[12] M.Q. Azhar, E.I. Sklar, A study measuring the impact of shared decision
making in a human–robot team, Int. J. Robot. Res. 36 (5–7) (2017) 461–482,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0278364917710540.
[13] B.R. Duffy, Anthropomorphism and the social robot, Robot. Auton. Syst. 42
(3–4) (2003) 177–190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3.
[14] R.P. Bagozzi, The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal
for a paradigm shift, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8 (4) (2007) 244–254, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00122%20.
[15] D. Cameron, S. de Saille, E.C. Collins, J.M. Aitken, H. Cheung, A. Chua, E.J.
Loh, J. Law, The effect of social-cognitive recovery strategies on likability,
capability and trust in social robots, Comput. Hum. Behav. 114 (2021)
106561, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106561.
[16] D. Fischinger, P. Einramhof, K. Papoutsakis, W. Wohlkinger, P. Mayer, P.
Panek, et al., Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home:
first prototype and lessons learned, Robot. Autonom. Syst. 75 (2016) 60–78,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2014.09.029.
[17] A. Edwards, C. Edwards, D. Westerman, P.R.. Spence, Initial expectations,
interactions, and beyond with social robots, Comput. Hum. Behav. 90
(2019) 308–314, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.042.
[18] F.D. Davis, A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New
End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results, Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT, 1985.
[19] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology, MIS Q. 13 (3) (1989) 319–339, http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/249008.
[20] N. Marangunic, A. Granic, Technology acceptance model: A literature
review from 1986 to 2013, Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 14 (1) (2015) 81–95,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1.
[21] A. Tossavainen, Reduction of Market and Technology Uncertainty Dur-
ing the Front End of New Product Development [Doctoral disser-
tation, Tampere University], Tampere University Dissertations, ISBN:
978-952-03-1537-5, 2020, p. 243.
[22] M. Turner, B. Kitchenham, P. Brereton, S. Charters, D. Budgen, Does the
technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature
review, Inf. Softw. Technol. 52 (5) (2010) 463–479, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.infsof.2009.11.005.
[23] N. Savela, T. Turja, A. Oksanen, Social acceptance of robots in different
occupational fields: A systematic literature review, Int. J. Soc. Robot. 10
(4) (2018) 493–502, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0452-5.
[24] V. Venkatesh, H. Bala, Technology acceptance model 3 and a research
agenda on interventions, Decis. Sci. 39 (2) (2008) 273–315, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
[25] M.M. De Graaf, S.B. Allouch, Exploring influencing variables for the ac-
ceptance of social robots, Robot. Auton. Syst. 61 (12) (2013) 1476–1486,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007.
[26] R. Kirby, J. Forlizzi, R. Simmons, Affective social robots, Robot. Auton. Syst.
58 (3) (2010) 322–332, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2009.09.015.
[27] E.M. Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovations, fifth ed., The Free Press, 2003.
[28] E. Park, S.J. Kwon, The adoption of teaching assistant robots: A technology
acceptance model approach, Program-Electr Libr. Inf. Syst. 50 (4) (2016)
354–366, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PROG-02-2016-0017.
[29] A.S. Ghazali, J. Ham, E. Barakova, P. Markopoulos, Persuasive robots
acceptance model (PRAM): Roles of social responses within the acceptance
model of persuasive robots, Int. J. Soc. Robot. 12 (2020) 1075–1092, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00611-1.
[30] R. De Kervenoael, R. Hasan, A. Schwob, E. Goh, Leveraging human–robot
interaction in hospitality services: Incorporating the role of perceived
value, empathy, and information sharing into visitors’ intentions to use
social robots, Tour. Manag. 78 (2020) 104042, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2019.104042.
[31] S.M.S. Khaksar, R. Khosla, S. Singaraju, B. Slade, Carer’s perception on
social assistive technology acceptance and adoption: Moderating effects
of perceived risks, Behav. Inf. Technol. 40 (4) (2021) 337–360, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1690046.
12
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033
[32] X. Lei, P.L.P. Rau, Effect of relative status on responsibility attributions in
human–robot collaboration: Mediating role of sense of responsibility and
moderating role of power distance orientation, Comput. Hum. Behav. 122
(2021) 106820, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106820.
[33] L. Royakkers, R. van Est, A literature review on new robotics: Automation
from love to war, Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7 (5) (2015) 549–570, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s12369-015-0295-x.
[34] K.J. Vänni, A.K. Korpela, Role of social robotics in supporting employees
and advancing productivity, in: Tapus A., E. André, JC. Martin, F. Ferland,
M. Ammi (Eds.), Social Robotics. ICSR 2015, in: Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol. 9388, Springer, Cham, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-25554-5_67.
[35] K.M.S. Faqih, M-I.R.M. Jaradat, Assessing the moderating effect of gender
differences and individualism-collectivism at individual-level on the adop-
tion of mobile commerce technology: TAM3 perspective, J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 22 (2015) 37–52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.09.006.
[36] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the Technology Accep-
tance Model: four longitudinal field studies, Management Science 46 (2)
(2000) 186–204, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
[37] V. Lotz, S. Himmel, M. Ziefle, You’re my mate – acceptance factors for
human–robot collaboration in industry, in: D. Dimitrov, D. Hagedorn-
Hansen, K. von Leipzig (Eds.), Knowledge Valorisation in the Age of
Digitalization. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Com-
petitive Manufacturing, COMA ’19, Stellenbosch, South Africa, ISBN:
078-0-7972-1779-9, 2019, pp. 405–411.
[38] C. Bröhl, J. Nelles, C. Brandl, A. Mertens, C.M. Schlick, TAM Reloaded: A
Technology Acceptance Model for Human–Robot Cooperation in Production
Systems, Institute of Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics, RWTH Aachen
University. Springer-Verlag, 2011.
[39] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, Davis F.D., User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Q. 27 (2003) 425–478,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540.
[40] A. Istenic, I. Bratko, V. Rosanda, Are pre- service teachers disinclined to
utilise embodied humanoid social robots in the classroom? Br. J. Educ.
Technol. (2021) http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13144.
[41] V. Venkatesh, J. Thong, X. Xu, Consumer acceptance and use of informa-
tion technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology, MIS Q. 36 (1) (2012) 157–178, https://www.jstor.org/stable/
41410412.
[42] C. Breazeal, K. Dautenhahn, T. Kanda, Social robotics, in: B. Siciliano,
O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Robotics, Springer., 2016, pp.
1935–1972, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_72.
[43] C. Nass, J. Steuer, E.R. Tauber, Computers are social actors, in: Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1994,
pp. 72–78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703.
[44] Y. Kim, S.S. Kwak, M.S. Kim, Am I acceptable to you? Effect of a robot’s
verbal language forms on people’s social distance from robots, Comput.
Hum. Behav. 29 (3) (2013) 1091–1101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2012.10.001.
[45] M. Heerink, B. Kröse, V. Evers, B. Wielinga, Influence of social presence
on acceptance of an assistive social robot and screen agent by elderly
users, Adv. Robot. 23 (14) (2009) 1909–1923, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/
016918609X12518783330289.
[46] M. Heerink, B. Kröse, V. Evers, B. Wielinga, Assessing acceptance of assistive
social agent technology by older adults: The almere model, Int. J. Soc.
Robot. 2 (4) (2010) 361–375, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-
5.
[47] D.H. Shin, H. Choo, Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics:
Social presence in human–robot interaction, Interact. Stud. 12 (3) (2011)
430–460, http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/is.12.3.04shi.
[48] T. Fong, I. Nourbakhsh, K. Dautenhahn, A survey of socially interactive
robots, Robot. Auton. Syst. 42 (3–4) (2003) 143–166, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X.
[49] G.Z. Yang, J. Bellingham, P.E. Dupont, P. Fischer, L. Floridi, R. Full, N.
Jacobstein, V. Kumar, M. McNutt, R. Merrifield, B.J. Nelson, B. Scassellati,
M. Taddeo, R. Taylor, M. Veloso, Z.L. Wang, R. Wood, The grand challenges
of science robotics, Science Robotics 3 (14) (2018) 1–14, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1126/scirobotics.aar7650.
[50] A. Alaiad, L. Zhou, The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption:
An empirical investigation, Int. J. Med. Inform. 83 (11) (2014) 825–840,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.07.003.
[51] T. Klamer, S.B. Allouch, Acceptance and use of a social robot by elderly
users in a domestic environment, in: 2010 4th International Conference
on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–8,
http://dx.doi.org/10.4108/ICST.PERVASIVEHEALTH2010.8892.
[52] C. BenMessaoud, H. Kharrazi, K.F. MacDorman, Facilitators and barriers
to adopting robotic-assisted surgery: Contextualizing the unified theory
of acceptance and use of technology, PLoS One 6 (1) (2011) e16395,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016395.
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al.
[53] A. Ahtinen, K. Kaipainen, Learning and teaching experiences with a per-
suasive social robot in primary school: Findings and implications from
a 4-month field study, in: Persuasive Technology. Designing for Future
Change. PERSUASIVE 2020, in: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.
12064, Springer, 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45712-9_6.
[54] M. Fridin, M. Belokopytov, Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot
by preschool and elementary school teachers, Comput. Hum. Behav. 33
(2014) 23–31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.016.
[55] D. Conti, S. Di Nuovo, S. Buono, A. Di Nuovo, Robots in education and
care of children with developmental disabilities: A study on acceptance
by experienced and future professionals, Int. J. Soc. Robot. 9 (1) (2017)
51–62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0359-6.
[56] M. Appel, S. Krause, U. Gleich, M. Mara, Meaning through fiction: Science
fiction and innovative technologies, Psychol. Aesthet. Creativity Arts 10
(2016) 472–480, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000052.
[57] S. Naneva, M.Sarda. Gou, T.L. Webb, T.J. Prescott, A systematic review
of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots, Int. J.
Soc. Robot. 12 (2020) 1179–1201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-
00659-4.
[58] T. Gnambs, M. Appel, Are robots becoming unpopular? Changes in attitudes
towards autonomous robotic systems in Europe, Comput. Hum. Behav. 93
(2019) 53–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.045.
[59] A.C. Simões, A.L. Soares, A.C. Barros, Factors influencing the intention
of managers to adopt collaborative robots (cobots) in manufacturing
organizations, J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 57 (2020) 101574, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jengtecman.2020.101574.
[60] T.W. Valente, Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations,
Social Networks 18 (1) (1996) 69–89.
[61] O. Dedehayir, R.J. Ortt, C. Riverola, F. Miralles, Innovators and early
adopters in the diffusion of innovations: A literature review, Int. J. Innov.
Manag. 21 (8) (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617400102.
[62] D.G. Labay, T.C. Kinnear, Exploring the consumer decision process in the
adoption of solar energy systems, J. Consum. Res. 8 (3) (1981) 271–278,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208865.
[63] International Federation of Robotics, World Robotics Service Robots
2019: Statistics, Market Analysis, Forecasts, Case Studies, IFR Statistical
Department. VDMA Services GmbH, 2019.
[64] A.P. Henkel, M. Čaić, M. Blaurock, M. Okan, Robotic transformative service
research: Deploying social robots for consumer well-being during Covid-19
and beyond, J. Serv. Manag. 31 (6) (2020) 1131–1148, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1108/JOSM-05-2020-0145.
[65] D. Giansanti, The social robot in rehabilitation and assistance: What
is the future? Healthcare 9 (3) (2021) 1–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
healthcare9030244, 244.
[66] M.J. Sobrepera, V.G. Lee, S. Garg, R. Mendonca, M.J. Johnson, Perceived
usefulness of a social robot augmented telehealth platform by therapists
in the United States, IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 6 (2) (2021) 2946–2953.
[67] M.R. Lima, M. Wairagkar, N. Natarajan, S. Vaitheswaran, R. Vaidyanathan,
Robotic telemedicine for mental health: A multimodal approach to improve
human–robot engagement, Front. Robot. AI 8 (2021) 618866, http://dx.doi.
org/10.3389/frobt.2021.618866.
[68] Y.H. Liao, L. Tzu-Yuan, C.C. Wu, Y.N. Shih, Can occupational therapy
manpower be replaced with social robots in a singing group during
COVID-19? Work 68 (1) (2021) 21–26, http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/WOR-
205096.
[69] Y. Weng, C. Chen, C. Sun, Toward the human–robot co-existence society:
On safety intelligence for next generation robots, Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1 (2009)
267–282, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0019-1.
[70] SoftBank Robotics, Pepper. www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper.
[71] Venturebeat, Softbank robotics enhances pepper the robot’s emotional
intelligence, 2018, https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/28/softbank-robotics-
enhances-pepper-the-robots-emotional-intelligence/.
[72] J.J. Cameron, D.A. Stinson, Gender (mis) measurement: Guidelines for
respecting gender diversity in psychological research, Soc. Pers. Psychol.
Compass 13 (11) (2019) http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12506.
[73] E.M. Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, 1962.
[74] M. Sarstedt, J.F. Hair, C.M. Ringle, K.O. Thiele, S.P. Gudergan, Estimation
issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies!, J. Bus. Res. 69 (2016)
3998–4010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007.
[75] E.H. Noppers, K. Keizer, M. Bockarjova, L. Steg, The adoption of sustainable
innovations: The role of instrumental, environmental, and symbolic at-
tributes for earlier and later adopters, J. Environ. Psychol. 44 (2015) 74–84,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.002.
[76] M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, J.F. Hair, Partial least squares structural equation
modeling, in: C. Homburg, M. Klarman, A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of
Market Research, Springer, 2017, pp. 1–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-05542-8_15-1.
13
Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033
[77] J.F. Hair, J.J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, When to use and how to
report the results of PLS-SEM, Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (1) (2019) 2–24, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
[78] J.L. Roldán, M.J. Sánchez-Franco, Variance-based structural equation mod-
eling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems
research, in: M. Mora, O. Gelman, A.L. Steenkamp, M. Raisinghani (Eds.),
Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems
Engineering and Information Systems, IGI Global, 2012, pp. 193–221.
[79] J.F. Hair, G.T.M. Hult, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), second ed., Sage, 2017.
[80] C.M. Ringle, S. Wende, J.M. Becker, SmartPLS 3, 2015, http://www.smartpls.
com.
[81] J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discrimi-
nant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling, J. Acad. Mark.
Sci. 43 (2015) 115–135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
[82] W.L. Woo, Future trends in I & M: Human-machine co-creation in the rise
of AI, IEEE Instrum. Measur. Mag. 23 (2) (2020) 71–73.
[83] T. Haidegger, M. Barreto, P. Gonçalves, M.K. Habib, S.K.V. Ragacan, H. Li,
A. Vaccarella, R. Perrone, E. Prestes, Applied ontologies and standards
for service robots, Robot. Auton. Syst. 61 (11) (2013) 1215–1223, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.05.008.
[84] M.T. Quasim, A. Shaikh, M. Shuaib, A. Sulaiman, S. Alam, Y. Asiri, Smart
healthcare management evaluation using fuzzy decision making method,
2021, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-424702/v1.
[85] J. Mohr, S. Sengupta, S. Slater, Marketing of High-Technology Products and
Innovations, third ed., Pearson Education Inc, 2010.
[86] P.S. Rizova, S. Gupta, E.N. Maltz, R.W. Walker, Overcoming equivocality
on projects in the fuzzy front end: Bringing social networks back in,
Technovation 78 (2018) 40–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.
2018.05.006.
[87] P. Conradie, L. De Marez, J. Saldien, User consultation during the fuzzy
front end: evaluating student’s design outcomes, International Journal of
Technology and Design Education 4 (2017) 563–575, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s10798-016-9361-4.
[88] F. Schweitzer, M. Palmie, O. Gassmann, Beyond listening: The distinct ef-
fects of proactive versus responsive customer orientation on the reduction
of uncertainties at the fuzzy front end of innovation, R & D Manag. 48 (5)
(2016) 534–550, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/radm.12252.
[89] M.A. Stanko, J.M. Bonner, Projective customer competence: Projecting
future customer needs that drive innovation performance, Ind. Market.
Manag. 42 (8) (2013) 1255–1265, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.
2013.05.016.
[90] B.S. Yoon, A.J. Jetter, Connecting customers with engineers for the success-
ful fuzzy front end: Requirement of tools, in: 2015 Portland International
Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, PICMET, 2015,
pp. 1585–1595.
[91] C.M. Christensen, The innovator’s dilemma, in: Collins Business Essentials,
2003.
Ulla A. Saari is a Senior Research Fellow at the Unit
of Industrial Engineering and Management, Tampere
University, Finland. She has received a D.Sc. (Tech)
degree in Industrial Engineering & Management and
a M.Sc. in Environmental Engineering from the Tam-
pere University of Technology. She also has a M.A.
degree in Languages and Social Sciences from the
University of Helsinki, Finland. She is a research af-
filiate at Jönköping University, Sweden. Her research
topics include technology & innovation management,
sustainability-oriented innovation, sustainable produc-
tion & consumption, sustainable business models. She has 20 years’ experience
in the high-tech industry in senior manager level roles.
Antero J. Tossavainen is a Technology Manager at
Huawei Technologies new Device Concept Laboratory
based in Helsinki, Finland. Antero has work experience
from various positions in Finnish high-tech consumer
electronics industry since 2001 at Nokia, Microsoft and
Huawei Technologies. Antero participates as a delegate
in ETSI 3GPP technology standardization. Antero has
received a D.Sc. (Tech) degree in Business and Technol-
ogy Management from Tampere University and M.Sc.
in Electrical and Information Engineering in University
of Oulu. Antero’s academic research is in fields of
technology acceptance, fuzzy front-end, new product development, market and
technology uncertainty and early adopters of technology.
U.A. Saari, A. Tossavainen, K. Kaipainen et al. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 151 (2022) 104033

Kirsikka Kaipainen is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow Saku J. Mäkinen, Ph.D., is a full professor at the Unit
at the Unit of Computing Sciences, Tampere University, of Industrial Engineering and Management at Tampere
Finland, and is also affiliated with the Department University, Finland. His research focuses on the field of
of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. She technology and innovation management and examines
has received a Ph.D. degree in Information Technol- social change and technology forecasting.
ogy from Tampere University of Technology in 2014,
and a M.Sc. in Computer Science from University of
Tampere. Her research interests include social robotics,
sustainable mobility, sustainable urban development,
and technology-aided interventions for mental health.

14