The global population is ageing rapidly, presenting significant challenges to promoting healthy ageing and well-being. Loneliness is a widespread concern among older adults, profoundly affecting their well-being. Social robots—designed to engage in social interactions and form emotional connections—are increasingly perceived as social actors in human-robot relationships and offer promising potential to alleviate loneliness. This study examines how older adults interact with social robots to address different forms of loneliness and enhance their subjective well-being. We conducted four studies: an initial qualitative pilot with older adults to explore their perceptions of the potential of social robots to alleviate loneliness; a second quantitative pilot to assess the relevance of the hypotheses and pretest measurement scales; a first main study manipulating emotional and social loneliness in older adults to test the hypotheses; and a second main study that replicated the first, focusing on older adults from a caregiver perspective. The results reveal two distinct mechanisms through which social robots enhance well-being: attachment for individuals experiencing emotional loneliness and social integration for those facing social loneliness. These findings provide insights into the role of social robots in mitigating different forms of loneliness among older adults. This research contributes to the literature on loneliness, transformative consumer research, and human-robot interaction.
AlabedA.JavornikA.Gregory-SmithD. (2022). AI Anthropomorphism and its effect on users’ self-congruence and self–AI integration: A theoretical framework and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121786
2.
AlemiM.GhanbarzadehA.MeghdariA.MoghadamL. J. (2016). Clinical application of a humanoid robot in pediatric cancer interventions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(5), 743–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0294-y
3.
Aymerich-FranchL.FerrerI. (2022). Liaison, safeguard, and well-being: Analyzing the role of social robots during the COVID-19 pandemic. Technology in Society, 70, 101993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101993
4.
BaischS.KollingT.SchallA.RühlS.SelicS.KimZ.RossbergH.KleinB.PantelJ.OswaldF.KnopfM. (2017). Acceptance of social robots by elder people: Does psychosocial functioning matter?International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(2), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0392-5
5.
BaltesP. B.BaltesM. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation. Successful Aging, 1–34.
6.
BanksM. R.WilloughbyL. M.BanksW. A. (2008). Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: Use of robotic versus living dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 9(3), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2007.11.007
7.
BarrettE.BurkeM.WhelanS.SantorelliA.OliveiraB. L.CavalloF.CaseyD. (2019). Evaluation of a companion robot for individuals with dementia: Quantitative findings of the MARIO project in an Irish residential care setting. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 45(7), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20190531-01
8.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
9.
BeerJ. M.PrakashA.SmarrC. A.ChenT. L.HawkinsK.NguyenH. … & RogersW. A. (2017). Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: Attitudinal changes following brief exposure. Gerontechnology, 16(1), 21–32. 10.4017/gt.2017.16.1.002.00
10.
BerridgeC.WetleT. F. (2020). Why older adults and their children disagree about in-home surveillance technology, sensors, and tracking. The Gerontologist, 60(5), 926–934. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz068
11.
BerridgeC.ZhouY.RobillardJ. M.KayeJ. (2023). Companion robots to mitigate loneliness among older adults : Perceptions of benefit and possible deception. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1106633. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1106633
12.
BertrandiasL.LoweB.Sadik-rozsnyaiO.CarricanoM. (2021). Delegating decision-making to autonomous products: A value model emphasizing the role of well-being. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, 120846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120846
13.
BroadbentE.StaffordR.MacDonaldB. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6
14.
BroekensJ.HeerinkM.RosendalH. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: A review. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 94–103.
15.
CacioppoJ. T.HughesM. E.WaiteL. J.HawkleyL. C.ThistedR. A. (2006). Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.140
16.
CacioppoJ. T.PatrickW. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. W. W. Norton & Company.
17.
ChenS. C.DavisB. H.KuoC. Y.MaclaganM.ChienC. O.LinM. F. (2022). Can the paro be my buddy? Meaningful experiences from the perspectives of older adults. Geriatric Nursing, 43, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2021.11.011
18.
ChenS. C.MoyleW.JonesC.PetskyH. (2020). A social robot intervention on depression, loneliness, and quality of life for Taiwanese older adults in long-term care. International Psychogeriatrics, 32(8), 981–991. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220000459
19.
ChiN. C.SparksO.LinS. Y.LazarA.ThompsonH. J.DemirisG. (2017). Pilot testing a digital pet avatar for older adults. Geriatric Nursing, 38(6), 542–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2017.04.002
20.
ChiW.DagninoG.KwokT. M.NguyenA.KundratD.AbdelazizM. E. … & YangG. Z. (2020, May). Collaborative robot-assisted endovascular catheterization with generative adversarial imitation learning. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp. 2414–2420). IEEE. 10.1109/ICRA40945.2020.9197390
21.
ChuM.-T.KhoslaR.KhaksarS. M. S.NguyenK. (2017). Service innovation through social robot engagement to improve dementia care quality. Assistive Technology, 29(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2016.1171807
22.
CoşarS.Fernandez-CarmonaM.AgrigoroaieR.PagesJ.FerlandF.ZhaoF.TapusA. (2020). ENRICHME: Perception and interaction of an assistive robot for the elderly at home. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12, 779–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00614-y
23.
CramerK. M.BarryJ. E. (1999). Conceptualizations and measures of loneliness: A comparison of subscales. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(3), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00257-8
24.
CutronaC.RussellD. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 37–67).
DangN. B.BertrandiasL. (2023). Social robots as healing aids: How and why powerlessness influences the intention to adopt social robots. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 196, 122845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122845
27.
DarlingK. (2016). Extending legal protection to social robots: The effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. In CaloR.FroomkinA. M.KerrI. (Eds.), Robot law (pp. 213–229). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783476732.00017
28.
DavisB.OzanneJ. L. (2019). Measuring the impact of transformative consumer research: The relational engagement approach as a promising avenue. Journal of Business Research, 100, 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.047
29.
de Jong GierveldJ.HavensB. (2004). Cross-national comparisons of social isolation and loneliness: Introduction and overview. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 23(2), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1353/cja.2004.0021
30.
DienerE.SuhE. M.LucasR. E.SmithH. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
31.
DiTommasoE.BrannenC.BestL. A. (2004). Measurement and validity characteristics of the short version of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258450
32.
DuffyB. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 177–190. 10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3
33.
FakoyaO. A.McCorryN. K.DonnellyM. (2020). Loneliness and social isolation interventions for older adults: A scoping review of reviews. BMC public Health, 20, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8251-6
34.
FaridS. (2014). Social isolation within family: An analysis of old age citizens. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 4(9), 1300–1311. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJESBS/2014/6267
35.
FigueiredoB.ChelekisJ.DeBerry-SpenceB.FıratA. F.GerG.Godefroit-WinkelD.TadajewskiM. (2015). Developing markets? Understanding the role of markets and development at the intersection of macromarketing and transformative consumer research (TCR). Journal of Macromarketing, 35(2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146714543524
36.
FollmannA.SchollemannF.ArnoldsA.WeismannP.LaurentiusT.RossaintR.CzaplikM. (2021). Reducing loneliness in stationary geriatric care with robots and virtual encounters—A contribution to the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), 4846. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094846
37.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
38.
GasteigerN.HellouM.AhnH. S. (2021). Deploying social robots in museum settings: A quasi-systematic review exploring purpose and acceptability. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 18(6), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/17298814211066740
39.
GhafurianM.EllardC.DautenhahnK. (2021). Social companion robots to reduce isolation: A perception change due to COVID-19. Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT. Springer International Publishing.
40.
GkinkoL.ElbannaA. (2022). Hope, tolerance and empathy: Employees’ emotions when using an AI-enabled chatbot in a digitalised workplace. Information Technology & People, 35(6), 1714–1743. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2021-0328
41.
Góngora AlonsoS.HamriouiS.de la Torre DíezI.Motta CruzE.López-CoronadoM.FrancoM. (2019). Social robots for people with aging and dementia: A systematic review of literature. Telemedicine and e-Health, 25(7), 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2018.0051
HawkleyL. C.CacioppoJ. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8
44.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
45.
HleeS.ParkJ.ParkH.KooC.ChangY. (2023). Understanding customer’s meaningful engagement with AI-powered service robots. Information Technology & People, 36(3), 1020–1047. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2020-0740
46.
Holt-LunstadJ.SmithT. B.BakerM.HarrisT.StephensonD. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
47.
JøransonN.PedersenI.RokstadA. M. M.AamodtG.OlsenC.IhlebækC. (2016). Group activity with Paro in nursing homes: Systematic investigation of behaviors in participants. International Psychogeriatrics, 28(8), 1345–1354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610216000120
KeeferL. A.LandauM. J.SullivanD. (2014). Non-human support: Broadening the scope of attachment theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12129
50.
KernM. L.WatersL. E.AdlerA.WhiteM. A. (2015). A multidimensional approach to measuring well-being in students: Application of the PERMA framework. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 262–271.
51.
KhaksarS. M. S.KhoslaR.ChuM. T.ShahmehrF. S. (2016). Service innovation using social robots to reduce social vulnerability among older people in residential care facilities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 113, 438–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.009
52.
KimY.MutluB. (2014). How social distance shapes human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72 (12), 783–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.010
53.
KühneK.Jeglinski-MendeM. A.FischerM. H.ZhouY. (2022). Social robot—Jack of all trades?Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2022-0002
54.
LabanG.KappasA.MorrisonV.CrossE. S. (2023). Opening up to social robots: How emotions drive self-disclosure behavior. In 2023 32nd IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1697–1704). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309551
55.
LaBargeM. C.PyleM. (2020). Staying in “the works of living”: How older adults employ marketplace resources to age successfully. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 54(2), 742–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12302
56.
LastovickaJ. L.SirianniN. J. (2011). Truly, madly, deeply: Consumers in the throes of material possession love. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1086/658338
57.
LauJ. H. T.KhanH.LeeR.LockshinL. S.SharpA.BuckleyJ.MidgleyR. (2022). Tackling obesity in aged-care homes: The effects of environmental cues. European Journal of Marketing, 56(11), 3054–3077. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2021-0235
58.
LawT.Chita-TegmarkM.RabbN.ScheutzM. (2022). Examining attachment to robots: Benefits, challenges, and alternatives. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 11(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526105
59.
Leigh-HuntN.BagguleyD.BashK.TurnerV.TurnbullS.ValtortaN.CaanW. (2017). An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health, 152, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035
LeiteI.PereiraA.MascarenhasS.MartinhoC.PradaR.PaivaA. (2013). The influence of empathy in human–robot relations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.005
62.
LetherenK.JettenJ.RobertsJ. (2021). Robots should be seen and not heard… sometimes: Anthropomorphism and AI service robot interactions. Psychology and Marketing, 38 (12), 2393–2406. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21595
63.
LuhmannM.HawkleyL. C. (2016). Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old age. Developmental Psychology, 52(6), 943–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000117
64.
MacKenzieS. B.LutzR. J.BelchG. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378602300205
65.
MaesM.NelemansS. A.DanneelS.Fernández-CastillaB.Van den NoortgateW.GoossensL.VanhalstJ. (2019). Loneliness and social anxiety across childhood and adolescence: Multilevel meta-analyses of cross-sectional and longitudinal associations. Developmental Psychology, 55(7), 1548–1565. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000719
66.
MickD. (2006). Meaning and mattering through transformative consumer research. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 1–15.
67.
MickD. G.FournierS. (1998). Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1086/209531
68.
MickD. G.PettigrewS.PechmannC.OzanneJ. L. (2011). Origins, qualities, and envisionments of transformative consumer research. In Transformative consumer research for personal and collective well-being (pp. 3–24). Routledge.
MoureyJ. A.OlsonJ. G.YoonC. (2017). Products as pals: Engaging with anthropomorphic products mitigates the effects of social exclusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 44;(1)–. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx038.
71.
MoyleW.CookeM.BeattieE.JonesC.KleinB.CookG.GrayC. (2013). Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 39(5), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20130313-03
72.
MoyleW.JonesC.CookeM.O’DwyerS.SungB.DrummondS. (2014). Connecting the person with dementia and family: A feasibility study of a telepresence robot. BMC Geriatrics, 14(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-7
73.
Muratbekova-TouronM.LeonE. (2023). ‘Is there anybody out there?’ Using a telepresence robot to engage in face time at the office. Information Technology & People, 36(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2021-0080
74.
NatarajanM.SerajE.AltundasB.PalejaR.YeS.ChenL.JensenR.ChangK. C.GombolayM. (2023). Human-robot teaming: Grand challenges. Current Robotics Reports, 4(3), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-023-00103-1
75.
NevenL. (2010). ‘But obviously not for me’: Robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(2), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01218.x
76.
NiemeläM.Van AerschotL.TammelaA.AaltonenI.LammiH. (2021). Towards ethical guidelines of using telepresence robots in residential care. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 431–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00529-8
77.
NumakunaiR.IchikawaT.GacsiM.KorondiP.HashimotoH.NiitsumaM. (2012). Exploratory behavior in ethologically inspired robot behavioral model. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (pp. 577–582). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2012.6343813
78.
Odekerken-SchröderG.MeleC.Russo-SpenaT.MahrD.RuggieroA. (2020). Mitigating loneliness with companion robots in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: An integrative framework and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 31(6), 1149–1162. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0148
79.
ParkheA. (1993). ‘Messy’ research, methodological predispositions, and theory development in international joint ventures. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/258759
80.
PeekS. T.WoutersE. J.Van HoofJ.LuijkxK. G.BoeijeH. R.VrijhoefH. J. (2014). Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(4), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004
81.
PirhonenJ.TiilikainenE.PekkarinenS.LemivaaraM.MelkasH. (2020). Can robots tackle late-life loneliness? Scanning of future opportunities and challenges in assisted living facilities. Futures, 124, 102640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102640
82.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
83.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
84.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
85.
ProctorC.TweedR. (2016). Measuring eudaimonic well-being. In VittersøJ. (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 277–294). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_18
86.
RandallN.JoshiS.KaminoW.HsuL. J.AgnihotriA.LiG.ŠabanovićS. (2022). Finding ikigai: How robots can support meaning in later life. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, 1011327. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.1011327
87.
RobinsonH.MacDonaldB.KerseN.BroadbentE. (2013). The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 14(9), 661–667. 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.007
88.
RoseG. M.OrrL. M. (2007). Measuring and exploring symbolic money meanings. Psychology & Marketing, 24(9), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20182
89.
RussellD.CutronaC. E.RoseJ.YurkoK. (1984). Social and emotional loneliness: An examination of weiss’s typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1313–1321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1313
90.
RussellD.PeplauL. A.CutronaC. E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472
91.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
92.
SabanovicS.BennettC. C.ChangW.-L.HuberL. (2013). PARO Robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. In 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650427
93.
SarricaM.BrondiS.FortunatiL. (2019). How many facets does a ‘social robot’ have? A review of scientific and popular definitions online. Information Technology & People, 33(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2018-0203
94.
SchoenmakersE. C.van TilburgT. G.FokkemaT. (2012). Coping with loneliness: What do older adults suggest?Aging & Mental Health, 16(3), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2011.630373
95.
SchoutenA. P.PortegiesT. C.WithuisI.WillemsenL. M.Mazerant-DuboisK. (2022). Robomorphism: Examining the effects of telepresence robots on between-student cooperation. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106980
96.
SharkeyA.SharkeyN. (2012). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6
97.
ShrumL. J.FumagalliE.LowreyT. M. (2023). Coping with loneliness through consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(2), 441–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1329
98.
SimmeringM. J.FullerC. M.RichardsonH. A.OcalY.AtincG. M. (2015). Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance: A review and demonstration. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 473–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114560023
99.
StensengF.BelskyJ.SkalickaV.WichstrømL. (2014). Preschool social exclusion, aggression, and cooperation: A longitudinal evaluation of the need-to-belong and the social-reconnection hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1637–1647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214554591
100.
StokesA. C.XieW.LundbergD. J.GleiD. A.WeinsteinM. A. (2021). Loneliness, social isolation, and all-cause mortality in the United States. SSM-Mental Health, 1, 100014.
101.
SungJ.-Y.GuoL.GrinterR. E.ChristensenH. I. (2007). ‘My roomba is rambo’: Intimate home appliances. In KrummJ.AbowdG. D.SeneviratneA.StrangT. (Eds.), Ubicomp 2007: Ubiquitous computing (Vol. 4717, pp. 145–162). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_9
102.
TuiskuO.PekkarinenS.HennalaL.MelkasH. (2019). ‘Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart’: The publicity around a robotic innovation in elderly care. Information Technology & People, 32(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-06-2018-0277
103.
TurkleS. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Hachette UK.
104.
ValorC.AntonettiP.CrisafulliB. (2022). Emotions and consumers’ adoption of innovations: An integrative review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 179, 121609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121609
105.
VictorC.GrenadeL.BoldyD. (2005). Measuring loneliness in later life: A comparison of differing measures. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 15(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259805001723
106.
WangJ.ZhuR.ShivB. (2012). The lonely consumer: Loner or conformer?Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1116–1128. https://doi.org/10.1086/661552
107.
WatermanA. S.SchwartzS. J.ZamboangaB. L.RavertR. D.WilliamsM. K.AgochaV. B.DonnellanM. B. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61. 10.1080/17439760903435208
108.
WeissR. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. MIT Press.
109.
WeissR. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In RubinZ. (Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. 17–26). Prentice-Hall.
ZwijsenS. A.NiemeijerA. R.HertoghC. M. (2011). Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: An overview of the literature. Aging & Mental Health, 15(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2010.543662
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
