IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v75y2023ics0160791x23001914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes of Israelis toward family caregivers assisted by a robot in the delivery of care to older people: The roles of collectivism and individualism

Author

Listed:
  • AboJabel, Hanan
  • Ayalon, Liat

Abstract

The provision of care to older people by robots is accompanied not only by negative attitudes about the implications of using robots for their care (e.g., increasing their loneliness or compromising their safety), but also negative attitudes toward family caregivers, as by transferring care to technological entities, they may be perceived as doing something inconsistent with family morals. These attitudes, which may hinder the adoption of robots for elder care, may be shaped by cultural factors – namely, a collectivistic vs. an individualistic orientation. The purpose of the current study was to examine for the first time: 1) the attitudes of the Israeli public toward family caregivers assisted by a robot in their care of an older person vs. family caregivers who provide care without a robot's assistance; and 2) whether horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism might explain these attitudes. An experimental study was conducted among a nationwide sample of 618 Israelis who were 18 years of age or older, using two vignettes that were randomly administered to respondents. Nearly half of the sample (49.5 %) received the first vignette, which assessed attitudes toward providing care for older people with the help of a robot. The remainder received the second vignette, assessing attitudes toward providing such care solely by their children. Participants reported significantly more perceived negative impacts on the caregiving recipient as a result of the use of a robot (mean/SD = 2.71/0.83) compared to the provision of care solely by family caregivers (mean/SD = 1.96/0.72), and they also had more negative perceptions toward family caregivers who used a robot (mean/SD = 3.49/0.86) compared to family caregivers who did not use a robot (mean/SD = 2.46/0.91). Vertical individualism/collectivism and background variables (i.e., age, education, gender, marital status) played a role in determining these attitudes. The research results provide important insights for the development of culturally appropriate intervention programs for the use of robots in elder care.

Suggested Citation

  • AboJabel, Hanan & Ayalon, Liat, 2023. "Attitudes of Israelis toward family caregivers assisted by a robot in the delivery of care to older people: The roles of collectivism and individualism," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:75:y:2023:i:c:s0160791x23001914
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X23001914
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102386?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toms, G. & Verity, F. & Orrell, A., 2019. "Social care technologies for older people: Evidence for instigating a broader and more inclusive dialogue," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    2. Hedva Vinarski-Peretz & Dafna Halperin, 2022. "Family Care in our Aging Society: Policy, Legislation and Intergenerational Relations: The Case of Israel," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 187-203, March.
    3. Obayashi, Kazuko & Kodate, Naonori & Masuyama, Shigeru, 2020. "Can connected technologies improve sleep quality and safety of older adults and care-givers? An evaluation study of sleep monitors and communicative robots at a residential care home in Japan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    4. Boada, Júlia Pareto & Maestre, Begoña Román & Genís, Carme Torras, 2021. "The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: A critical literature review," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    5. Weck, Marina & Afanassieva, Marianne, 2023. "Toward the adoption of digital assistive technology: Factors affecting older people's initial trust formation," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2).
    6. Sejdi Hoxha & Riad Ramadani, 2023. "The Impact of Collectivistic Values and Psychological Needs on Individual Performance with Conscientiousness Acting as a Moderator," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Perla Werner & Sarang Kim, 2022. "How Are Sociodemographic, Health, Psychological, and Cognitive Factors Associated with Dementia Worry? An Online Survey Study among Israeli and Australian Laypeople," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-9, September.
    8. XI-Fen Lin & Douglas A Wolf & J Jill Suitor, 2020. "Division of Parent Care Among Adult Children," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 75(10), pages 2230-2239.
    9. Hsu, Eric L. & Elliott, Anthony & Ishii, Yukari & Sawai, Atsushi & Katagiri, Masataka, 2020. "The development of aged care robots in Japan as a varied process," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wilk-Jakubowski, Grzegorz & Harabin, Radoslaw & Ivanov, Stanislav, 2022. "Robotics in crisis management: A review," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    2. Sætra, Henrik Skaug, 2020. "The foundations of a policy for the use of social robots in care," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Tamaki Welply, Yuko & Lechevalier, Sébastien, 2024. "‘Social’ robot and social relations in care settings: Undefined positionality and fixed temporality," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    4. Hsu, Eric L. & Elliott, Anthony & Ishii, Yukari & Sawai, Atsushi & Katagiri, Masataka, 2020. "The development of aged care robots in Japan as a varied process," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. Fosch-Villaronga, Eduard & Calleja, Carlos José & Drukarch, Hadassah & Torricelli, Diego, 2023. "How can ISO 13482:2014 account for the ethical and social considerations of robotic exoskeletons?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    6. Diederich, Freya & König, Hans-Helmut & Brettschneider, Christian, 2021. "A longitudinal perspective on inter vivos transfers between children and their parents in need of long-term care," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    7. Khalil, Fares Georges, 2024. "Socio-technical platforms for care transformation: An integrative synthesis and conceptualization," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    8. Brondi, Sonia & Pivetti, Monica & Di Battista, Silvia & Sarrica, Mauro, 2021. "What do we expect from robots? Social representations, attitudes and evaluations of robots in daily life," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    9. Fink, Matthias & Maresch, Daniela & Gartner, Johannes, 2023. "Programmed to do good: The categorical imperative as a key to moral behavior of social robots," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    10. Hedva Vinarski-Peretz & Michal Mashiach-Eizenberg & Dafna Halperin, 2024. "Workforce Sustainability in Our Aging Society: Exploring How the Burden–Burnout Mechanism Exacerbates the Turnover Intentions of Employees Who Combine Work and Informal Eldercare," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Deng, Shichang & Zhang, Jingjing & Lin, Zhengnan & Li, Xiangqian, 2024. "Service staff makes me nervous: Exploring the impact of insecure attachment on AI service preference," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    12. Arndt Schäfer & Reinhold Esterbauer & Bettina Kubicek, 2024. "Trusting robots: a relational trust definition based on human intentionality," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Aymerich-Franch, Laura & Ferrer, Iliana, 2022. "Liaison, safeguard, and well-being: Analyzing the role of social robots during the COVID-19 pandemic," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    14. Sejdi Hoxha & Riad Ramadani, 2024. "The Impact of Intrinsic Motivation on the Sustainable Extra-Role Performance with the Mediating Role of Job Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, September.
    15. Affandi, Yoga & Ridhwan, Masagus M. & Trinugroho, Irwan & Hermawan Adiwibowo, Danny, 2024. "Digital adoption, business performance, and financial literacy in ultra-micro, micro, and small enterprises in Indonesia," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(PB).
    16. Hoffmann, Christian Hugo, 2022. "Is AI intelligent? An assessment of artificial intelligence, 70 years after Turing," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    17. Cho, Tsai-Chin & Park, Bona & Choi, HwaJung, 2023. "Measuring spatial availability of children for older adults with disability," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 335(C).
    18. Obayashi, Kazuko & Kodate, Naonori & Masuyama, Shigeru, 2020. "Can connected technologies improve sleep quality and safety of older adults and care-givers? An evaluation study of sleep monitors and communicative robots at a residential care home in Japan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    19. Wang, Zheng, 2024. "Artificial intelligence in dance education: Using immersive technologies for teaching dance skills," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    20. Kim, Justine Jihyun & Lee, Jongsu & Shin, Jungwoo & He, Meihan, 2022. "How are high-tech assistive devices valued in an aging society? Exploring the use and non-use values of equipment that aid limb disability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:75:y:2023:i:c:s0160791x23001914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.