IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/eldpol/v2y2023i3p19-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

AI Companion Robot Data Sharing: Preferences of an Online Cohort and Policy Implications

Author

Listed:
  • Clara Berridge
  • Yuanjin Zhou
  • Julie M. Robillard
  • Jeffrey Kaye

Abstract

Policymakers have recognized the urgent need to create AI data protections, yet the interests of older adults have thus far not been well represented. We report peoples' perspectives on small AI companion robots for older adults, along with attendant issues related to facial expression and conversation data collection and sharing. Data are from a cross‐sectional survey of an online cohort of the Oregon Center for Aging & Technology at Oregon Health & Science University, with a response rate of 45% and analytic sample of 825 (mean age: 63.9, rang: 25‐88). Logistic regressions examined relationships between comfort and data sharing preferences with socio‐demographic characteristics. Just over half (52.3%) were somewhat or very comfortable with an artificial companion robot during the pandemic and 45.2% were under normal circumstances. In adjusted models, being younger, male, and having lower formal education and greater confidence in computer use were associated with greater likelihood of being comfortable with a companion robot. Those who were at least somewhat comfortable with robots recording their conversations (15%) or reported that they would probably want their facial expressions read for emotion detection (52.8%) also selected with whom they want these data shared. Free text comments were thematically analyzed. Primary themes were that robot‐based data collection constitutes over monitoring and invasion of privacy, with participants predicting data privacy, security, and use issues. These findings about the importance potential users place on data protection and transparency demonstrate a need for law and policy to act to enable trustworthy, desirable companion robots. Los formuladores de políticas han reconocido la necesidad urgente de crear protecciones de datos de IA, pero los intereses de los adultos mayores hasta ahora no han estado bien representados. Informamos las perspectivas de las personas sobre los pequeños robots acompañantes de IA para adultos mayores, junto con los problemas relacionados con la expresión facial y la recopilación y el intercambio de datos de conversación. Los datos provienen de una encuesta transversal de una cohorte en línea del Centro de Oregón para el Envejecimiento y la Tecnología en la Universidad de Salud y Ciencias de Oregón, con una tasa de respuesta del 45 % y una muestra analítica de 825 (edad media: 63,9, rango: 25‐88). Las regresiones logísticas examinaron las relaciones entre la comodidad y las preferencias de intercambio de datos con características sociodemográficas. Un poco más de la mitad (52,3 %) se sintió algo o muy cómodo con un robot de compañía artificial durante la pandemia y el 45,2 % se encontraba en circunstancias normales. En modelos ajustados, ser más joven, hombre y tener una educación formal más baja y una mayor confianza en el uso de la computadora se asociaron con una mayor probabilidad de sentirse cómodo con un robot compañero. Aquellos que se sentían al menos algo cómodos con los robots grabando sus conversaciones (15 %) o informaron que probablemente querrían que se leyeran sus expresiones faciales para la detección de emociones (52,8 %) también seleccionaron con quién querían compartir estos datos. Los comentarios de texto libre se analizaron temáticamente. Los temas principales fueron que la recopilación de datos basada en robots constituye un control excesivo y una invasión de la privacidad, y los participantes predijeron problemas de privacidad, seguridad y uso de datos. Estos hallazgos sobre la importancia que los usuarios potenciales le dan a la protección de datos y la transparencia demuestran la necesidad de que la ley y la política actúen para habilitar robots de compañía deseables y confiables. 政策制定者已经认识到建立人工智能(AI)数据保护这一迫切需求,但迄今为止,老年人的利益尚未得到充分代表。我们报告了人们对为老年人服务的小型AI伴侣机器人的看法,以及随之而来的一系列问题,后者与面部表情、对话数据收集及共享相关。对俄勒冈健康与科学大学的俄勒冈老龄化与技术中心的一个网络群体进行横断面调查并收集数据,调查响应率为45%,分析样本为825人(平均年龄:63.9岁,年龄范围:25‐88岁)。逻辑回归分析了舒适度、数据共享偏好与社会人口特征之间的关系。在大流行期间,仅超过一半(52.3%)的人对AI伴侣机器人感到有些舒适或非常舒适,而45.2%的人则对AI伴侣机器人感到不舒适。在调整后的模型中,年轻、男性、正规教育程度较低以及对计算机使用更有信心等因素与“更有可能对伴侣机器人感到舒适”一事相关。那些对机器人记录对话一事至少感到些许舒适的人(15%)或报告称其可能希望读取其面部表情以用于情绪检测的人(52.8%)也选择了其希望与谁共享这些数据。对自由回答的文本评论进行了主题分析。基本主题是,基于机器人的数据收集构成了过度监控和隐私侵犯,并且参与者预测会出现关于数据隐私、安全和使用的问题。这些关于“潜在用户对数据保护和透明度的重视”的调查结果表明,需要法律和政策采取行动,以创造值得信赖的理想伴侣机器人。

Suggested Citation

  • Clara Berridge & Yuanjin Zhou & Julie M. Robillard & Jeffrey Kaye, 2023. "AI Companion Robot Data Sharing: Preferences of an Online Cohort and Policy Implications," Journal of Elder Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(3), pages 19-54, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2023:i:3:p:19-54
    DOI: 10.18278/jep.2.3.2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.18278/jep.2.3.2
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18278/jep.2.3.2?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kate Crawford, 2021. "Time to regulate AI that interprets human emotions," Nature, Nature, vol. 592(7853), pages 167-167, April.
    2. M. Grace Trinidad & Jodyn Platt & Sharon L. R. Kardia, 2020. "The public’s comfort with sharing health data with third-party commercial companies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. J. Scott Long & Jeremy Freese, 2006. "Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables using Stata, 2nd Edition," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, edition 2, number long2, August.
    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. Jinsuk Yang & Qing Hao & Mahmut Yaşar, 2023. "Institutional investors and cross‐border mergers and acquisitions: The 2000–2018 period," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 553-583, September.
    2. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    3. Dixon, Huw D. & Grimme, Christian, 2022. "State-dependent or time-dependent pricing? New evidence from a monthly firm-level survey: 1980–2017," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    4. Melanie Lefevre, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay for Local Milk-based Dairy Product in Senegal," CREPP Working Papers 1108, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    5. Erik Stam & Roy Thurik & Peter van der Zwan, 2010. "Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1109-1139, August.
    6. Miriam Marcén & Marina Morales, 2019. "Live together: does culture matter?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 671-713, June.
    7. Bruno Amable, 2009. "The Differentiation of Social Demands in Europe. The Social Basis of the European Models of Capitalism," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 391-426, May.
    8. Altorjai, Szilvia, 2013. "Over-qualification of immigrants in the UK," ISER Working Paper Series 2013-11, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    9. Michelsen, Carl Christian & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Switching from fossil fuel to renewables in residential heating systems: An empirical study of homeowners' decisions in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 95-105.
    10. Rolando Rubilar-Torrealba & Karime Chahuán-Jiménez & Hanns de la Fuente-Mella & Mercedes Marzo-Navarro, 2022. "Econometric Modeling to Measure the Social and Economic Factors in the Success of Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    11. Susanne Meyer & Javier Revilla Diez, 2015. "One country, two systems: How regional institutions shape governance modes in the greater Pearl River Delta, China," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(4), pages 891-900, November.
    12. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet & Wang, Jian, 2014. "How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 175-180.
    13. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    14. Kelly Sharp & Hisham Zerriffi & Philippe Billon, 2020. "Land scarcity, resettlement and food security: Assessing the effect of voluntary resettlement on diet quality in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(1), pages 191-205, February.
    15. Charlie Tchinda & Marcus Dejardin, 2021. "Are Business Policy Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic to Be Equally Valued? An Exploration According to SMEs Owners’ Business Expectations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-42, October.
    16. Ryan J. Owens, 2010. "The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 412-427, April.
    17. Carlos García-Serrano & Virginia Hernanz & Luis Toharia, 2010. "Mind the Gap, Please! The Effect of Temporary Help Agencies on the Consequences of Work Accidents," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 162-182, June.
    18. Lee, Richard J. & Sener, Ipek N. & Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Handy, Susan L., 2017. "Relationships between the online and in-store shopping frequency of Davis, California residents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 40-52.
    19. Caudill, Jonathan W. & Getty, Ryan & Smith, Rick & Patten, Ryan & Trulson, Chad R., 2013. "Discouraging window breakers: The lagged effects of police activity on crime," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 18-23.
    20. Stoeffler, Quentin & Mills, Bradford & del Ninno, Carlo, 2016. "Reaching the Poor: Cash Transfer Program Targeting in Cameroon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 244-263.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2023:i:3:p:19-54. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.