Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Yeni İş Arkadaşlarımız Olarak Robotlar: İnsan Biçimciliğin Çalışanların Otomasyon Seviyeleri Tercihi Üzerindeki Etkisi

Year 2018, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 17 - 30, 31.05.2018

SERKAN Erebak TÜLAY Turgut

https://doi.org/10.25203/idd.352463
Cited By: 1

Abstract

 Amaç : Yaşlı bakım kuruluşları yaşlanan nüfusun
ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için robotları kullanması beklenen örgütlerdendir.
Dolayısıyla, bu çalışmanın temel amacı yaşlı bakımında çalışanların potansiyel
çalışma arkadaşları olan robotlara karşı bakış açısını anlamaktır. Robotların
görünümü için çeşitli dizaynlar geliştirilirken, bu görünümlerin kullanıcıların
otomasyon seviyesi tercihi üzerinde etkisinin olup olmadığını görmek önemlidir.

Tasarım/Yöntem: Yaşlı bakımı için huzurevinde çalışan 102 bakıcı
(19 ve 40 yaş arasında) tasarlanan deneye katılmıştır. Analizler için bağımsız
gruplar t-testi kullanılmıştır. 

Sonuçlar: Robotların insansılık oranlarının otomasyon
seviyeleri tercihinde bir etken olmadığı bulunmuştur. Ayrıca cinsiyetin ve
eğitim seviyesinin de otomasyon seviyeleri tercihinde bir fark yaratmadığı
anlaşılmıştır. 

Özgün Değer: Bu çalışmayla tercih edilen otomasyon seviyeleri
üzerinde insan biçimciliğin etkisine ilk defa odaklanılmıştır. Ayrıca robotların
dizaynı hakkında potansiyel kullanıcı olarak çalışanların bakış açılarının anlaşılması
fikri vurgulanmış, insan merkezli teknoloji adaptasyonu desteklenmiştir.

Keywords

İnsan Biçimcilik Robot Otomasyon Yaşlı Bakımı

References

  • Bar-Cohen, Y., Marom, A., & Hanson, D. (2009). The coming robot revolution: Expectations and fears about emerging intelligent, humanlike machines. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Bartneck, C., Bleeker, T., Bun, J., Fens, P., & Riet, L. (2010). The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 1(2), 109-115.
  • Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71-81.
  • Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(4), 319-330.
  • Chapanis, A. (1970). Plenary Discussion: Relevance of physiological and psychological criteria to man-machine systems: The present state of the art. Ergonomics, 13(3), 337-346.
  • Chew, S., Tay, W., Smit, D., & Bartneck, C. (2010, November). Do social robots walk or roll?. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 355-361). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • Choi, J. G., & Kim, M. (2009). The usage and evaluation of anthropomorphic form in robot design. In: Undisciplined! Design research society conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, 16–19 July 2008.
  • Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Werry, I. (2005, August). What is a robot companion-friend, assistant or butler?. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 1192-1197). IEEE.
  • Dorais, G., Bonasso, R. P., Kortenkamp, D., Pell, B., & Schreckenghost, D. (1999, August). Adjustable autonomy for human-centered autonomous systems. In Working notes of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Workshop on Adjustable Autonomy Systems (pp. 16-35).
  • Dubowsky, S., Genot, F., Godding, S., Kozono, H., Skwersky, A., Yu, H., & Yu, L. S. (2000). PAMM-a robotic aid to the elderly for mobility assistance and monitoring: a “helping-hand” for the elderly. In Robotics and Automation, 2000. Proceedings. ICRA'00. IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 570-576). IEEE.
  • Duffy, B. R. (2002). Anthropomorphism and robotics. The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour, 20.
  • Endsley, M. R. (1987, September). The application of human factors to the development of expert systems for advanced cockpits. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 31, No. 12, pp. 1388-1392). SAGE Publications.
  • Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32-64.
  • Endsley, M. R., & Kaber, D. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462-492.
  • Fasola, J., & Mataric, M. J. (2012). Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(8), 2512-2526.
  • Feil-Seifer, D., & Mataric, M. (2008, June). Robot-assisted therapy for children with autism spectrum disorders. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 49-52). ACM.
  • Gearon, C. J. (2013). Staffing the hospital of tomorrow. U.S. News & World Report.
  • Gibbs, S. (2013). What is Boston Dynamics and why does Google wants robots? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/17/google-boston-dynamics robots-atlas-bigdog-cheetah. Retrieved at 10 May, 2016.
  • Google Scholar (2016). Top publications – Robotics. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_robotics.
  • Graf, B. (2009). An adaptive guidance system for robotic walking aids. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 17(1), 109-120.
  • Hancock, P. A., & Chignell, M. H. (1989). Intelligent interfaces: Theory, research, and design. Elsevier Science Inc..
  • International Federation of Robotics. (2015). Service robot statistics. http://www.ifr.org/servicerobots/statistics/. Retrieved at 10 May, 2016.
  • International Federation of Robotics’ official website. http://www.ifr.org/. Retrieved at 10 May, 2016.
  • Jacobzone, S. (2000). Coping with aging: international challenges. Health Affairs, 19(3), 213-225.
  • Jenkins, O. C., Nicolescu, M. N., & Mataric, M. J. (2004). Autonomy and supervision for robot skills and tasks learned from demonstration. In AAAI-04 Workshop on Supervisory Control of Learning and Adaptive Systems.
  • Kageyama, Y. (2002). Nurse gadget patrols the wards. The Age, 44.
  • Kiata, L., Kerse, N., & Dixon, R. (2005). Residential care workers and residents: the New Zealand story. The New Zealand Medical Journal (Online), 118(1214).
  • Kitano, M. (2005). Japan looks to robots for elderly care. Sydney Morning Herald, July 20, Sydney, Australia
  • Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50-80.
  • Lockhart, J. M., Strub, M. H., Hawley, J. K., & Tapia, L. A. (1993, October). Automation and supervisory control: A perspective on human performance, training, and performance aiding. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 37, No. 18, pp. 1211-1215). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
  • Lutz, W., Sanderson, W., & Scherbov, S. (2008). The coming acceleration of global population ageing. Nature, 451(7179), 716-719.
  • Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98-100.
  • Mutlu, B., & Forlizzi, J. (2008, March). Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on (pp. 287-294). IEEE.
  • Nitsch, V., & Popp, M. (2014). Emotions in robot psychology. Biological Cybernetics, 108(5), 621-629.
  • Nof, S. Y. (2009). Automation: what it means to us around the world. In Springer Handbook of Automation (pp. 13-52). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • Ntuen, C. A., & Park, E. H. (1988, October). Human factor issues in teleoperated systems. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ergonomics of Hybrid Automated Systems I (pp. 203-210). Elsevier Science Publishers BV.
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63-92.
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.
  • Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced'complacency'. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1-23.
  • Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286-297.
  • Pineau, J., Montemerlo, M., Pollack, M., Roy, N., & Thrun, S. (2003). Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: Challenges and results. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3), 271-281.
  • Rehm, M., & Krogsager, A. (2013, August). Negative affect in human robot interaction—impoliteness in unexpected encounters with robots. In 2013 IEEE RO-MAN (pp. 45-50). IEEE.
  • Reuters. (2016). Toyota could be the buyer for Google’s robotic dog. http://fortune.com/2016/06/01/toyota-google-boston-dynamics/. Retrieved at 10 May, 2016.
  • Riek, L. D. (2015). Robotics Technology in Mental Health Care. Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care, 185.
  • Riek, L. D., Rabinowitch, T. C., Chakrabarti, B., & Robinson, P. (2009, March). How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction (pp. 245-246). ACM.
  • Rouse, W. B. (1988). Adaptive aiding for human/computer control. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 30(4), 431-443.
  • Schneider, E. L. (1999). Aging in the third millennium. Science, 283(5403), 796-797.
  • Severin, E. O. (2004). Robot companions: Mentorbots and beyond. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • Shenkar, O. (1988). Blue, white and steel collar: a case study of robot introduction. New Technology, Work and Employment, 3(1), 66-73.
  • Sheridan, T. B., & Parasuraman, R. (2005). Human-automation interaction. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 1(1), 89-129.
  • Sheridan, T. B., & Verplank, W. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Massachusetts Inst of Tech Cambridge Man-Machine Systems Lab. Ntu.
  • Spexard, T., Haasch, A., Fritsch, J., & Sagerer, G. (2006, May). Human-like person tracking with an anthropomorphic robot. In Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. (pp. 1286-1292). IEEE.
  • Thrun, S. (2004). Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human–Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 9-24.
  • Toshiba to Showcase Advances in Sophisticated Home Life Support Robot. (2005). https://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_05/pr2001.htm. Retrieved at 1 June, 2016.
  • United Nations. (2015). World Population Aging. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2015_Report.pdf. Retrieved at 3 June, 2016.
  • Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., & Tanie, K. (2003, October). Effects of robot assisted activity to elderly people who stay at a health service facility for the aged. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003.(IROS 2003). Proceedings. 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (Vol. 3, pp. 2847-2852). IEEE..
  • WHO. (2007). Investing in health workforce enables stronger health systems. In: Fact sheet. Belgrade, Copenhagen.

Robots As Our New Coworkers: The Influence of Anthropomorphism on Employees' Preference of Levels of Automation

Year 2018, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 17 - 30, 31.05.2018

SERKAN Erebak TÜLAY Turgut

https://doi.org/10.25203/idd.352463
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Objective of the study: Eldercare facilities
are one of those organizations which are expected to use robots in order to
fulfill the needs of aging population. So, the main aim of this study is to understand employees’ standing point
about their potential robot coworkers in eldercare. While
variety of designs were developed for robot appearance, it is important to see
whether there is  any influence of this
appearance on users’ preference of level of automation.

Design and Methodolgy: 102 caregivers who
work for eldercare in a nursing home (aged between 19 and 40) participated in
designed experiment. Independent samples t-test was used for analyses.

Findings: The degree of human
likeness of robots was not an influencer for preference of level of automation.
Moreover, demographic variables such as gender and education level did not make
a considerable difference on the preference of levels of automation.

Originality: This is the first
time that the influence of anthropomorphism on the preference of levels of
automation was focused. Also, the idea of understanding the potential users’, employees’,
perception for designs of robots was emphasized; and therefore human-centered
approach for technology adaptation was supported.

Keywords

Anthropomorphism Robot Automation Eldercare

References

  • Bar-Cohen, Y., Marom, A., & Hanson, D. (2009). The coming robot revolution: Expectations and fears about emerging intelligent, humanlike machines. Springer Science & Business Media.
  • Bartneck, C., Bleeker, T., Bun, J., Fens, P., & Riet, L. (2010). The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 1(2), 109-115.
  • Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71-81.
  • Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(4), 319-330.
  • Chapanis, A. (1970). Plenary Discussion: Relevance of physiological and psychological criteria to man-machine systems: The present state of the art. Ergonomics, 13(3), 337-346.
  • Chew, S., Tay, W., Smit, D., & Bartneck, C. (2010, November). Do social robots walk or roll?. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 355-361). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • Choi, J. G., & Kim, M. (2009). The usage and evaluation of anthropomorphic form in robot design. In: Undisciplined! Design research society conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, 16–19 July 2008.
  • Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Werry, I. (2005, August). What is a robot companion-friend, assistant or butler?. In 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 1192-1197). IEEE.
  • Dorais, G., Bonasso, R. P., Kortenkamp, D., Pell, B., & Schreckenghost, D. (1999, August). Adjustable autonomy for human-centered autonomous systems. In Working notes of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Workshop on Adjustable Autonomy Systems (pp. 16-35).
  • Dubowsky, S., Genot, F., Godding, S., Kozono, H., Skwersky, A., Yu, H., & Yu, L. S. (2000). PAMM-a robotic aid to the elderly for mobility assistance and monitoring: a “helping-hand” for the elderly. In Robotics and Automation, 2000. Proceedings. ICRA'00. IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 570-576). IEEE.
  • Duffy, B. R. (2002). Anthropomorphism and robotics. The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour, 20.
  • Endsley, M. R. (1987, September). The application of human factors to the development of expert systems for advanced cockpits. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 31, No. 12, pp. 1388-1392). SAGE Publications.
  • Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32-64.
  • Endsley, M. R., & Kaber, D. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42(3), 462-492.
  • Fasola, J., & Mataric, M. J. (2012). Using socially assistive human–robot interaction to motivate physical exercise for older adults. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100(8), 2512-2526.
  • Feil-Seifer, D., & Mataric, M. (2008, June). Robot-assisted therapy for children with autism spectrum disorders. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 49-52). ACM.
  • Gearon, C. J. (2013). Staffing the hospital of tomorrow. U.S. News & World Report.
  • Gibbs, S. (2013). What is Boston Dynamics and why does Google wants robots? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/17/google-boston-dynamics robots-atlas-bigdog-cheetah. Retrieved at 10 May, 2016.
  • Google Scholar (2016). Top publications – Robotics. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_robotics.
  • Graf, B. (2009). An adaptive guidance system for robotic walking aids. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 17(1), 109-120.
  • Hancock, P. A., & Chignell, M. H. (1989). Intelligent interfaces: Theory, research, and design. Elsevier Science Inc..
  • International Federation of Robotics. (2015). Service robot statistics. http://www.ifr.org/servicerobots/statistics/. Retrieved at 10 May, 2016.
  • International Federation of Robotics’ official website. http://www.ifr.org/. Retrieved at 10 May, 2016.
  • Jacobzone, S. (2000). Coping with aging: international challenges. Health Affairs, 19(3), 213-225.
  • Jenkins, O. C., Nicolescu, M. N., & Mataric, M. J. (2004). Autonomy and supervision for robot skills and tasks learned from demonstration. In AAAI-04 Workshop on Supervisory Control of Learning and Adaptive Systems.
  • Kageyama, Y. (2002). Nurse gadget patrols the wards. The Age, 44.
  • Kiata, L., Kerse, N., & Dixon, R. (2005). Residential care workers and residents: the New Zealand story. The New Zealand Medical Journal (Online), 118(1214).
  • Kitano, M. (2005). Japan looks to robots for elderly care. Sydney Morning Herald, July 20, Sydney, Australia
  • Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50-80.
  • Lockhart, J. M., Strub, M. H., Hawley, J. K., & Tapia, L. A. (1993, October). Automation and supervisory control: A perspective on human performance, training, and performance aiding. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 37, No. 18, pp. 1211-1215). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
  • Lutz, W., Sanderson, W., & Scherbov, S. (2008). The coming acceleration of global population ageing. Nature, 451(7179), 716-719.
  • Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98-100.
  • Mutlu, B., & Forlizzi, J. (2008, March). Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on (pp. 287-294). IEEE.
  • Nitsch, V., & Popp, M. (2014). Emotions in robot psychology. Biological Cybernetics, 108(5), 621-629.
  • Nof, S. Y. (2009). Automation: what it means to us around the world. In Springer Handbook of Automation (pp. 13-52). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • Ntuen, C. A., & Park, E. H. (1988, October). Human factor issues in teleoperated systems. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ergonomics of Hybrid Automated Systems I (pp. 203-210). Elsevier Science Publishers BV.
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63-92.
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.
  • Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced'complacency'. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1-23.
  • Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286-297.
  • Pineau, J., Montemerlo, M., Pollack, M., Roy, N., & Thrun, S. (2003). Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: Challenges and results. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3), 271-281.
  • Rehm, M., & Krogsager, A. (2013, August). Negative affect in human robot interaction—impoliteness in unexpected encounters with robots. In 2013 IEEE RO-MAN (pp. 45-50). IEEE.
  • Reuters. (2016). Toyota could be the buyer for Google’s robotic dog. http://fortune.com/2016/06/01/toyota-google-boston-dynamics/. Retrieved at 10 May, 2016.
  • Riek, L. D. (2015). Robotics Technology in Mental Health Care. Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care, 185.
  • Riek, L. D., Rabinowitch, T. C., Chakrabarti, B., & Robinson, P. (2009, March). How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction (pp. 245-246). ACM.
  • Rouse, W. B. (1988). Adaptive aiding for human/computer control. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 30(4), 431-443.
  • Schneider, E. L. (1999). Aging in the third millennium. Science, 283(5403), 796-797.
  • Severin, E. O. (2004). Robot companions: Mentorbots and beyond. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • Shenkar, O. (1988). Blue, white and steel collar: a case study of robot introduction. New Technology, Work and Employment, 3(1), 66-73.
  • Sheridan, T. B., & Parasuraman, R. (2005). Human-automation interaction. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 1(1), 89-129.
  • Sheridan, T. B., & Verplank, W. L. (1978). Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Massachusetts Inst of Tech Cambridge Man-Machine Systems Lab. Ntu.
  • Spexard, T., Haasch, A., Fritsch, J., & Sagerer, G. (2006, May). Human-like person tracking with an anthropomorphic robot. In Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. (pp. 1286-1292). IEEE.
  • Thrun, S. (2004). Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human–Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 9-24.
  • Toshiba to Showcase Advances in Sophisticated Home Life Support Robot. (2005). https://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_05/pr2001.htm. Retrieved at 1 June, 2016.
  • United Nations. (2015). World Population Aging. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2015_Report.pdf. Retrieved at 3 June, 2016.
  • Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., & Tanie, K. (2003, October). Effects of robot assisted activity to elderly people who stay at a health service facility for the aged. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003.(IROS 2003). Proceedings. 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (Vol. 3, pp. 2847-2852). IEEE..
  • WHO. (2007). Investing in health workforce enables stronger health systems. In: Fact sheet. Belgrade, Copenhagen.
There are 57 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Business Administration
Journal Section Articles
Authors

SERKAN Erebak

TÜLAY Turgut

Publication Date May 31, 2018
Acceptance Date December 5, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 3 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Erebak, S., & Turgut, T. (2018). Robots As Our New Coworkers: The Influence of Anthropomorphism on Employees’ Preference of Levels of Automation. İş’te Davranış Dergisi, 3(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.25203/idd.352463

Cited By

Dancing with service robots: The impacts of employee-robot collaboration on hotel employees’ job crafting
International Journal of Hospitality Management
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103220

JB@W is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.