This research explores the initial attitudes of special educators towards socially assistive robots (SAR) and considers how cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds shape these attitudes. Special educators providing services to individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the United States and Serbia were surveyed, representing distinct cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Comparing their attitudes offers valuable insights into facilitating SAR adoption for ASD treatment across different cultural landscapes. Additionally, this study conducts a comparative analysis of cultural dimensions in the two countries to contextualize attitudes toward SAR use in ASD treatment.
Methods
A nonexperimental quantitative approach was employed utilizing a cross-sectional survey design with purposive samples of special educators who provide services to individuals with ASD in the U.S. and Serbia to establish initial attitudes toward SARs.
Results
The outcomes derived from this investigation reflect the pervasive influence of the cultural contexts. Apprehension has been identified as a significant factor shaping attitudes toward SAR adoption among the Serbian cohort, while a more favorable disposition towards this technology typifies the U.S. participants. The adoption and utilization of SARs, as reported by participants in the U.S., face relatively fewer attitudinal barriers.
AkremiA.SmaouiF. (2015). Socially responsible consumption in emerging markets: Do cultural values and religiosity matter?8th annual conference of the EuroMed academy of business, Verona, Italy, September 16–18, 2015.
2.
AndersonJ. E.SchwagerP. H. (2004). SME adoption of wireless lan technology: Applying the UTAUT model. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems, 7, 39–43. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sais2004/6.
3.
AnzaloneS. M.XavierJ.BoucennaS.BilleciL.NarzisiA.MuratoriF.CohenD.ChetouaniM. (2019). Quantifying patterns of joint attention during human-robot interactions: An application for autism spectrum disorder assessment. Pattern Recognition Letters, 118(■), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2018.03.007
BaglamaB.YikmisA.DemirokM. S. (2017). Special education teachers’views on using technology in teaching mathematics. European Journal of Special Education Research, 2(5), 15. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.839032
6.
BagwellC. (2001). Reducing status effects with computer mediated communication: Evidence from two distinct national cultures. Distance Education, 22(1), 180. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518199
7.
BaturayM. H.GökçearslanŞ.KeF. (2017). The relationship among pre-service teachers' computer competence, attitude towards computer-assisted education, and intention of technology acceptance. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtel.2017.084084
8.
BegumM.SernaR. W.YancoH. A. (2016a). Are robots ready to deliver autism interventions? A comprehensive review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0346-y
9.
BennettC.StanojevićČ.ŠabanovićS.PiattJ.KimS. (2021). When no one is watching: Ecological momentary assessment to understand situated social robot use in healthcare. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on human-agent interaction, Japan, November 9–11, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472307.3484670
10.
BennettC. C.SabanovicS.PiattJ. A.NagataS.EldridgeL.RandallN. (2017). A robot a day keeps the blues away. 2017 IEEE international conference on healthcare informatics (ICHI), Park City, UT, USA, 23 August, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/ichi.2017.43
11.
BoucennaS.AnzaloneS.TilmontE.CohenD.ChetouaniM. (2014). Learning of social signatures through imitation game between a robot and a human partner. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 6(3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1109/tamd.2014.2319861
12.
BreazealC. (2004). Social interactions in hri: The robot view. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 34(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmcc.2004.826268
13.
CalhounK. J.TengJ. T.CheonM. J. (2002). Impact of national culture on information technology usage behaviour: An exploratory study of decision making in Korea and the USA. Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(4), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929021000013491
14.
ChenC. C.BodeR. K. (2011). Factors influencing therapists' decision-making in the acceptance of new technology devices in stroke rehabilitation. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 90(5), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1097/phm.0b013e318214f5d8
15.
ChungI. K.AdamsC. R. (1997). A study on the characteristics of group decision making behavior: Cultural difference perspective of Korea vs. US. Journal of Global Information Management, 5(3), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.1997070102
16.
ČolićR.MilićĐ.PetrićJ.ČolićN. (2021). Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – participants’ views. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 40(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544211002188
17.
ContiD.CattaniA.Di NuovoS.Di NuovoA. (2015). A cross-cultural study of acceptance and use of robotics by future psychology practitioners. 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2015.7333601
18.
ContiD.CommodariE.BuonoS. (2017a). Personality factors and acceptability of socially assistive robotics in teachers with and without specialized training for children with disability. Life Span and Disability, 20(2), 251–272. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/18254/
19.
ContiD.Di NuovoS.BuonoS.TrubiaG.Di NuovoA. (2015). Use of robotics to stimulate imitation in children with autism spectrum disorder: A pilot study in a clinical setting. 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2015.7333589
20.
ContiD.Di NuovoS.BuonoS.Di NuovoA. (2017b). Robots in education and care of children with developmental disabilities: A study on acceptance by experienced and future professionals. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0359-6
21.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Dickstein-FischerL.AlexanderE.YanX.SuH.HarringtonK.FischerG. S. (2011). An affordable compact humanoid robot for autism spectrum disorder interventions in children. 2011 annual international conference of the. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/iembs.2011.6091316
24.
Dickstein-FischerL. A.Crone-ToddD. E.ChapmanI. M.FathimaA. T.FischerG. S. (2018). Socially assistive robots: Current status and future prospects for autism interventions. Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Health, 5, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.2147/ieh.s138753
25.
DiehlJ. J.SchmittL. M.VillanoM.CrowellC. R. (2012). The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A critical review. Research in autism spectrum disorders, 6(1), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.006
26.
Feil-SeiferD.MatarićM. J. (2011). Socially assistive robotics. 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005, 18(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/icorr.2005.1501143
HeerinkM.KröseB.EversV.WielingaB. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5
29.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values. behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications.
30.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 2307. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
31.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2005) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2). McGraw-Hill.
HofstedeG. H.HofstedeG.ArrindellW. A.HofstedeG. H. (1998) Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures (3). Sage.
34.
HuangF.Sánchez-PrietoJ. C.TeoT.García-PeñalvoF. J.Olmos-MigueláñezS.ZhaoC. (2021). A cross-cultural study on the influence of cultural values and teacher beliefs on university teachers’ information and communications technology acceptance. Educational Technology Research & Development, 69(2), 1271–1297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09941-2
35.
InglehartR.BakerW. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657288
36.
KimE.PaulR.ShicF.ScassellatiB. (2012). Bridging the research gap: Making HRI useful to individuals with autism. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 26–54. https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.1.1.kim
37.
KimS.BennettC. C.HenkelZ.LeeJ.StanojevicC.BaugusK.BethelC.PiattJ.ŠabanovićS. (2023). Generative replay for multi-class modeling of human activities via sensor data from in-home robotic companion pets. Intelligent Service Robotics, 17(2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-023-00496-0
38.
LeidnerD. E.CarlssonS.ElamJ.CorralesM. (1999). Mexican and Swedish managers' perceptions of the impact of eis on organizational intelligence, decision making, and structure. Decision Sciences, 30(3), 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb00901.x
39.
LeidnerD. E.KayworthT. (2006). Review: A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357–399. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148735
40.
Martinez-MartinE.EscalonaF.CazorlaM. (2020). Socially assistive robots for older adults and people with autism: An overview. Electronics, 9(2), 367. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9020367
41.
MazonC.FageC.SauzéonH. (2019). Effectiveness and usability of technology-based interventions for children and adolescents with asd: A systematic review of reliability, consistency, generalization and durability related to the effects of intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.001
42.
McTaggartN. L. (1994). Inclusionary education for students with disabilities: Keeping the promise. The Council.
43.
MikićV.PetrovicG.SavaC. (2023). Digital education in primary schools in the Republic of Serbia. Journal of Process Management and New Technologies, 11(1-2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.5937/jouproman2301089m
44.
MilosevicD. (2019). A comparison of hofstede cultural dimensions: Italy, Germany and Serbia. The Economic and Management of Natural Resources.
45.
NikolićG.CvijetićM.BrankovićN.ĐorđićD.JohnstoneC. (2020). Not there yet: Lessons learned on the journey to inclusion in the Republic of Serbia. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 67(4), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2019.1589429
46.
OettingenG. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149–176). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511527692.007
47.
OkoloC. M.DiedrichJ. (2014). Twenty-five years later: How is technology used in the education of students with disabilities? Results of a statewide study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341402900101
48.
OshlyanskyL.CairnsP.ThimblebyH. (2007). Validating the unified theory of acceptance and Use of technology (UTAUT) tool cross-culturally. Electronic Workshops in Computing. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/hci2007.67
49.
PakkarR.ClabaughC.LeeR.DengE.MataricćM. J. (2019). Designing a socially assistive robot for long-term in-home use for children with autism spectrum disorders. 2019 28th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ro-man46459.2019.8956468
50.
ParkmanS.LitzD.GromikN. (2018). Examining pre-service teachers’ acceptance of technology-rich learning environments: A uae case study. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1253–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9665-3
51.
PiattJ.NagataS.ŠabanovićS.ChengW.-L.BennettC.LeeH. R.HakkenD. (2016). Companionship with a robot? Therapists’ perspectives on socially assistive robots as therapeutic interventions in community mental health for older adults. American Journal of Recreation Therapy, 15(4), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.5055/ajrt.2016.0117
52.
QuaddusM.TungL. L. (2002). Explaining cultural differences in decision conferencing. Communications of the ACM, 45(8), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/545151.545157
53.
RabayahK. (2019). The impact of culture on acceptance of e-learning: A palestinian case study using structural equation model. 2019 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/educon.2019.8725110
54.
RainforthB.YorkJ.MacDonaldC. (1992). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy and educational services. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 4(4), 213. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001577-199200440-00024
55.
RobinsB.DautenhahnK.DubowskiJ. (2006a). Does appearance matter in the interaction of children with autism with a humanoid robot?Interaction Studies, 7(3), 479–512. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.16rob
56.
RobinsB.DautenhahnK.DubowskiJ. (2006b). Does appearance matter in the interaction of children with autism with a humanoid robot?Interaction Studies, 7(3), 479–512. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.16rob
57.
RoseG. M.EvaristoR.StraubD. (2003). Culture and consumer responses to web download time: A four-continent study of mono and polychronism. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2002.808262
58.
ŠabanovićS.ChangW.-L.BennettC. C.PiattJ. A.HakkenD. (2015). A robot of my own: Participatory design of socially assistive robots for independently living older adults diagnosed with depression. Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for Aging. First international conference, ITAP 2015, held as part of HCI international 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2–7 August, 2015. Part I 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20892-3_11
59.
SaddlerB.NewmanD.PassaK. (2006). The benefits of integrating technology into inclusive classrooms. Society for information technology & teacher education international conference. Alabama A & M University.
60.
SalterS. B.DuongH. K.GuptaG. (2024). The future of national culture in accounting research. Journal of International Accounting Research, 23(2), 173–200. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-2022-043
61.
ScarcellaI.MarinoF.FaillaC.DoriaG.ChilàP.MinutoliR.VetranoN.VagniD.PignoloL.Di CaraM.SettimoC.QuartaroneA.CerasaA.PioggiaG. (2023). Information and communication technologies-based interventions for children with autism spectrum conditions: A systematic review of randomized control trials from a positive technology perspective. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1212522. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1212522
62.
ScassellatiB. (2007). How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. In ThrunS.BrooksR.Durrant-WhyteH. (Eds.), Robotics Research Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics (28, pp. 552–563). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-48113-3_47
SciuttiA.ReaF.SandiniG. (2014). When you are young, (robot's) looks matter. Developmental changes in the desired properties of a robot friend. The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Edinburgh, Scotland, 25–29 August, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2014.6926313
65.
SignoriniP.WiesemesR.MurphyR. (2009). Developing alternative frameworks for exploring intercultural learning: A critique of hofstede's cultural difference model. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898825
66.
SiyamN. (2019). Factors impacting special education teachers’ acceptance and actual use of technology. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2035–2057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09859-y
67.
SochanskiM.SnyderK.KornederJ.LouieW.-Y. G. (2021). Therapists’ perspectives after implementing a robot into autism therapy. 2021 30th IEEE international conference on robot & human interactive communication (ROMAN). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ro-man50785.2021.9515375
68.
StankovićJ.StankovićJ. Z.TomićZ. (2022). Factors affecting digital transformation of insurance in the Republic of Serbia. Economic Themes, 60(1), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.2478/ethemes-2022-0008
69.
StanojevicC.BennettC. C.SabanovicS.CollinsS.Baugus HenkelK.HenkelZ.PiattJ. A. (2023). Conceptualizing socially-assistive robots as a digital therapeutic tool in healthcare. Frontiers in digital health, 5, 1208350. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1208350
70.
Syriopoulou-DelliC. K.GkiolntaE. (2022). Review of assistive technology in the training of children with autism spectrum disorders. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 68(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2019.1706333
71.
TanB. C.WeiK.-K.WatsonR. T.ClapperD. L.McLeanE. R. (1998). Computer-mediated communication and majority influence: Assessing the impact in an individualistic and a collectivistic culture. Management Science, 44(9), 1263–1278. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1263
72.
TarasV.RowneyJ.SteelP. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Review of approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of International Management, 15(4), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2008.08.005
73.
TarhiniA.ScottM.SharmaS.AbbasiM. S. (2015). Differences in intention to use educational rss feeds between lebanese and british students: A multi-group analysis based on the technology acceptance model. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(1):14–29. https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10879
74.
ValenciaK.RusuC.QuiñonesD.JametE. (2019). The impact of technology on people with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic literature review. Sensors, 19(20), 4485. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19204485
75.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
76.
VreedeG.-J. d.JonesN.MgayaR. J. (1998). Exploring the application and acceptance of group support systems in Africa. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(3), 197–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518218
77.
WainerA. L.IngersollB. R. (2011). The use of innovative computer technology for teaching social communication to individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.08.002
