skip to main content
10.1145/3292147.3292176acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesozchiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Using robot pets instead of companion animals for older people: a case of 'reinventing the wheel'?

Published:04 December 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Robot pets are being developed and deployed to provide companionship for older adults. While robot pets offer some therapeutic benefits, their intended use for 'companionship' often provokes ethical debate, including concern that interactions with robot pets are demeaning or lack value compared to other social interactions. Another concern is that robot pets provide no real advantages over companion animals. This conceptual paper draws on philosophy, human-animal bond research, and technology development in robotics, to consider whether robot pets provide new opportunities for companionship as opposed to just 'reinventing the wheel'. We argue that robot pets may sometimes be as beneficial as companion animals or offer something different and distinctive. The paper provides a foundation for further multidisciplinary research to advance understanding of the ethical issues and the opportunities and challenges that arise in our ongoing and changing relationships with new technologies such as robot pets.

References

  1. @Dannybaus2015, 29 March, 2018. Tweet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. @Debbiemorad, 29 March, 2018. Tweet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. American Vetinary Medical Association, 2018. Human-Animal Bond.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. and Anderson, S.L., 2011. Machine ethics Cambridge University Press, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Securities & Investments Commission, 2018. Getting a pet: The truth about cats and dogs. In Moneysmart: Financial guidance you can trust.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Banks, M.R. and Banks, W.A., 2005. The effects of group and individual animal-assisted therapy on loneliness in residents of long-term care facilities. Anthrozoös 18, 4 (2005/12/01), 396--408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Barak, Y., Savorai, O., Mavashev, S., and Beni, A., 2001. Animal-assisted therapy for elderly schizophrenic patients: a one-year controlled trial. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry 9, 4, 439--442.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Barker, S.B. and Wolen, A.R., 2008. The benefits of human-companion animal interaction: A review. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 35, 4, 487--495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Bbc News, 2018. Robotic dog in Dorset care home helps elderly residents, https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-dorset-43479791/robotic-dog-in-dorset-care-home-helps-elderly-residents.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck, A.M. and Katcher, A.H., 2003. Future Directions in Human-Animal Bond Research. American Behavioural Scientist 47, 1, 79--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Birnbaum, G.E., Mizrahi, M., Hoffman, G., Reis, H.T., Finkel, E.J., and Sass, O., 2016. Machines as a source of consolation: Robot responsiveness increases human approach behavior and desire for companionship. The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, 165--171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Blackford, R., 2012. Robots and reality: a reply to Robert Sparrow. Ethics and information technology 14, 1, 41--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Boucher, D.H., 1998. The Biology of Mutualism: Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Bouwhuis, D.G., 2016. Current use and possibilities of robots in care. Gerontechnology 15, 4, 198--208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Broekens, J., Heerink, M., and Rosendal, H., 2009. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontology 8, 2, 94--103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruggencate, T.T., Luijkx, K.G., and Sturm, J., 2017. Social needs of older people: a systematic literature review. Ageing and Society, 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Bustad, L.K., 1981. Animals, Aging, and the Aged. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Byford, S., 2017. Sony just announced a new Aibo robot dog. In The Verge, https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/2010/2031/16588878/sony-aibo-16582017-announced-price-release-date.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Carrasco, R., Baker, S., Waycott, J., and Vetere, F., 2017. Negotiating stereotypes of older adults through avatars. In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction ACM, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 218--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Cheon, E. and Su, N.M., 2017. Configuring the User: "Robots have Needs Too". In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing ACM, Portland, Oregon, USA, 191--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Chur-Hansen, A., Winefield, H., and Beckwith, M., 2008. Reasons Given by Elderly Men and Women for Not Owning a Pet, and the Implications for Clinical Practice and Research. Journal of Health Psychology 13, 8, 988--995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Coeckelbergh, M., 2010. Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics and information technology 12, 3, 209--221. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Coeckelbergh, M., 2012. Are emotional robots deceptive? IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 3, 4, 388--393. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Connellan, S., 2018. Old Sony Aibo robot dogs receive the Buddhist funeral they deserve Mashable Australia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Consequential Robotics, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Consequential Robotics Ltd, 2017. MiRO.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Coppinger, R., & Schneider, R, 1995. Evolution of working dogs. In The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people, 21--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. De Schutter, B., Brown, J.A., and Vanden Abeele, V., 2015. The domestication of digital games in the lives of older adults. New Media & Society 17, 7, 1170--1186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Degrazia, D., 1996. Taking animals seriously: mental life and moral status. Cambridge University Press, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Dumouchel, P., 2017. Of Objects and Affect. Japanese Review of Cultural Anthropology 18, 1, 99--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Durick, J., Robertson, T., Brereton, M., Vetere, F., and Nansen, B., 2013. Dispelling ageing myths in technology design. In Proceedings OzCHI 2013 ACM Press, 467--476. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Faver, C.A. and Cavazos, A.M.J., 2008. Love, safety, and companionship: The human-animal bond and Latino families. Journal of Family Social Work 11, 3, 254--271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Fine, A.H., 2006. Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice. Academic Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Gosling, S.D. and John, O.P., 1999. Personality Dimensions in Nonhuman Animals:A Cross-Species Review. Current Directions in Psychological Science 8, 3, 69--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Halm, M.A., 2008. The healing power of the human-animal connection. American Journal of Critical Care 17, 4, 373--376.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Haraway, D.J., 2003. The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness Prickly Paradigm, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Headey, B. and Grabka, M., 2007. Pets and Human Health in Germany and Australia: Natinoal Longitudinal Results. Social Indicators Research 80, 297--311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Irvine, L., 2009. Filling the Ark: Animal Welfare in Disasters. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jukin Media Verified, 2018. Hello AIBO!!! Wake up. -981552.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Kanamori, M., Suzuki, M., and Tanaka, M., 2002. Maintenance and improvement of quality of life among elderly patients using a pet-type robot. Nihon Ronen Igakkai zasshi. Japanese journal of geriatrics 39, 2, 214--218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Lagoni, L., Butler, C., and Hetts, S., 1994. The human-animal bond and grief. Saunders.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Lazar, A., Thompson, H.J., Piper, A.M., and Demiris, G., 2016. Rethinking the Design of Robotic Pets for Older Adults. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Brisbane, QLD, Australia2016), ACM, 2901811, 1034--1046. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Lee, M.L. and Dey, A.K., 2015. Sensor-based observations of daily living for aging in place. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 19, 1, 27--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Lee, S.P., Cheok, A.D., James, T.K.S., Debra, G.P.L., Jie, C.W., Chuang, W., and Farbiz, F., 2006. A mobile pet wearable computer and mixed reality system for human-poultry interaction through the internet. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 10, 5, 301--317. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Leong, T.W. and Johnston, B., 2016. Co-design and Robots: A Case Study of a Robot Dog for Aging People. In Social Robotics, A. Agah, J.-J. Cabibihan, A.M. Howard, M.A. Salichs and H. He Eds. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 702--711.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Li, D., Rau, P.L.P., and Li, Y., 2010. A Cross-cultural Study: Effect of Robot Appearance and Task. International Journal of Social Robotics 2, 2 (2010/06/01), 175--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Lützén, K., Cronqvist, A., Magnusson, A., and Andersson, L., 2003. Moral stress: synthesis of a concept. Nursing Ethics 10, 3, 312--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Mali, A.D., 2002. On the behavior-based architectures of autonomous agency. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 32, 3, 231--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Marti, P., Pollini, A., Rullo, A., and Shibata, T., 2005. Engaging with Artificial Pets. In 2005 Annual conference on European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics, University of Athens, 99--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Mathews, F., 2016. Without Animals Life is Not Worth Living. Ginninderra Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Melson, G.F., Kahn Jr, P. H., Beck, A., and Friedman, B., 2009. Robotic pets in human lives: Implications for the human-animal bond and for human relationships with personified technologies. Journal of Social Issues 65, 3, 545--567.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Midgley, M., 1998. Animals and why they matter. University of Georgia Press, Atlanta.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Moyle, W., Bramble, M., Jones, C., and Murfield, J., 2018. Care staff perceptions of a social robot called Paro and a look-alike Plush Toy: a descriptive qualitative approach. Aging & Mental Health 22, 3 (2018/03/04), 330--335.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Moyle, W., Cooke, M., Beattie, E., Jones, C., Klein, B., Cook, G., and Gray, C., 2013. Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of gerontological nursing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Moyle, W., Jones, C., Murfield, J., Thalib, L., Beattie, E., Shum, D., and Draper, B., 2017. Using a therapeutic companion robot for dementia symptoms in long-term care: reflections from a cluster-RCT. Aging & Mental Health, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Mynatt, E., Rowan, J., Jacobs, A., and Craighill, S., 2001. Digital family portraits: supporting peace of mind for extended family members. In CHI 2001: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, J. Jacko and A. Sears Eds. ACM, New York, 333 - 340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Nagasawa, M., Kikusui, T., Onaka, T., and Ohta, M., 2009. Dog's Gaze at Its Owner Increases Owner's Urinary Oxytocin during Social Interaction. Hormones and Behavior 55, 434--441.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Neven, L. and Leeson, C., 2015. Beyond determinism: Understanding actual use of social robots by older people. In Aging and the Digital Life Course, D. Prendergast and C. Garattini Eds. Berghahn Books, New York, Oxford, 84--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Neves, B.B., Franz, R.L., Munteanu, C., and Baecker, R., 2017. Adoption and feasibility of a communication app to enhance social connectedness amongst frail institutionalized oldest old: an embedded case study. Information, Communication & Society, 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Neves, B.B., Franz, R.L., Munteanu, C., Baecker, R., and Ngo, M., 2015. "My hand doesn't listen to me!": Adoption and evaluation of a communication technology for the 'oldest old'. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing ACM Press, 1593--1602. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Newman, A., 2016. Therapy Cats for Dementia Patients, Batteries Included The New York Times, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Nussbaum, M.C., 2009. Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. O'haire, M., 2010. Companion animals and human health: Benefits, challenges, and the road ahead. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: clinical applications and research 5, 5, 226--234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. O'haire, M.E., 2013. Animal-assisted intervention for autism spectrum disorder: A systematic literature review. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 43, 7, 1606--1622.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Paro Robots, 2014. PARO Therapeutic Robot.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Paro Robots Inc, 2014. Paro Robots.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Perkins, J., Bartlett, H., Travers, C., and Rand, J., 2008. Dog-assisted therapy for older people with dementia: a review. Australasian Journal of Ageing 27, 4, 177--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Petrie, H. and Darzentas, J., 2017. Older people and robotic technologies in the home: perspectives from recent research literature. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments ACM, Island of Rhodes, Greece, 29--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Pleoworld, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Podberscek, A.L., Paul, E.S., and Serpell, J.A., 2000. Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the Relationships between People and Pets. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Preuß, D. and Legal, F., 2016. Living with the animals: animal or robotic companions for the elderly in smart homes? Journal of medical ethics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Pu, L., Moyle, W., Jones, C., and Todorovic, M., 2018. The Effectiveness of Social Robots for Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies. The Gerontologist, gny046-gny046.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Pym, H., 2015. Is this cuddly robot coming to a care home near you? - BBC News BBC World.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Rees, M., Wolpert, D., and Richardson, K., 2013. Ask the experts: will robots take over the world? In The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/ask-the-experts-will-robots-take-over-the-world-16791.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Righi, V., Sayago, S., and Blat, J., 2017. When we talk about older people in HCI, who are we talking about? Towards a 'turn to community' in the design of technologies for a growing ageing population. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 108(2017/12/01/), 15--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Robertson, I.D., Irwin, P.J., Lymbery, A.J., and Thompson, R.C.A., 2000. The role of companion animals in the emergence of parasitic zoonoses. International Journal for Parasitology 30, 12 (2000/11/01/), 1369--1377.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Robinson, H. and Broadbent, E., 2016. Group sessions with Paro in a nursing home: Structure, observations and interviews. Australasian Journal on Ageing 35, 2, 106--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Rodogno, R., 2016. Social robots, fiction, and sentimentality. Ethics and information technology 18, 4, 257--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Rollin, B.E., 1987. Euthanasia and moral stress. Loss, Grief & Care 1, 1--2, 115--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Serpell, J.A., 2017. The Human-Animal Bond. In The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies Oxford University Press, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Sharkey, A. and Sharkey, N., 2012. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and information technology 14, 1, 27--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Shibata, T., Mitsui, T., Wada, K., Touda, A., Kumasaka, T., Tagami, K., and Tanie, K., 2001. Mental commit robot and its application to therapy of children. In IEEE/ASME Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics IEEE/ASME, 1053--1058.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Shibata, T. and Wada, K., 2011. Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly-a mini-review. Gerontology 57, 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Singer, P., 1995. Animal Liberation. Random House.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Sony, 2018. aibo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Sparrow, R., 2002. The march of the robot dogs. Ethics and information technology 4, 4, 305--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Stanton, C.M., Kahn Jr, P.H., Severson, R.L., Ruckert, J.H., and Gill, B.T., 2008. Robotic animals might aid in the social development of children with autism. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction ACM, 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Steels, L., 1995. When are robots intelligent autonomous agents? Robotics and Autonomous systems 15, 1--2, 3--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Vandemeulebroucke, T., Dierckx De Casterlé, B., and Gastmans, C., 2018. The use of care robots in aged care: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 74(2018/01/01/), 15--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Vines, J., Mcnaney, R., Holden, A., Poliakov, I., Wright, P., and Olivier, P., 2016. Our Year With the Glass: Expectations, Letdowns and Ethical Dilemmas of Technology Trials With Vulnerable People. Interacting with Computers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Vygotsky, L.S., 1990. Imagination and creativity in childhood. Soviet psychology 28, 1, 84--96.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Wada, K. and Shibata, T., 2007. Living with seal robots---its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 23, 5, 972--980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Wallach, W. and Allen, C., 2008. Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, London. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  94. Waycott, J., Davis, H., Vetere, F., Morgans, A., Gruner, A., Ozanne, E., and Kulik, L., 2014. Captioned photographs in psychosocial aged care: Relationship building and boundary work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ACM Press, 4167 - 4176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Waycott, J., Vetere, F., Pedell, S., Kulik, L., Ozanne, E., Gruner, A., and Downs, J., 2013. Older adults as digital content producers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ACM Press, Paris, 39--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. Waycott, J., Vetere, F., Pedell, S., Morgans, A., Ozanne, E., and Kulik, L., 2016. Not for me: Older adults choosing not to participate in a social isolation intervention. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems ACM Press, 745--757. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. Westphal, B.J., Lee, H., Cheung, N.-M., Teo, C.G., and Leong, W.K., 2017. Experience of designing and deploying a tablet game for people with dementia. In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction ACM, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 31--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Wilson, E.O., 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Wood, L.J., Giles-Corti, B., Bulsara, M.K., and Bosch, D.A., 2007. More than a furry companion: The ripple effect of companion animals on neighborhood interactions and sense of community. Society & Animals 15, 1, 43--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  100. Worthington, E., 2013. Robot seals comfort dementia patients in nursing homes Australian Broadcasting Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Ziemke, T., 2001. Are robots embodied. First international workshop on epigenetic robotics Modeling Cognitive Development in Robotic Systems 85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Using robot pets instead of companion animals for older people: a case of 'reinventing the wheel'?

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        OzCHI '18: Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction
        December 2018
        639 pages
        ISBN:9781450361880
        DOI:10.1145/3292147

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 4 December 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate362of729submissions,50%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader