Social Robots in Organizational Contexts

Social Robots in Organizational Contexts: The Role of Culture and Future Research Needs

Theresa Schmiedel, Janine Jäger, and Vivienne Jia Zhong

Abstract The integration of social robots in organizations is on the rise. In the future, an increase in the application of physically embodied robots who socially interact and collaborate with humans is expected. In this chapter, we outline the organizational contexts in which current research examines social robots and point out cultural challenges regarding their implementation in the workplace. We suggest that the successful integration of social robots in organizations requires a cultural fit between values embedded in social robots and values lived in the organizational context in which the robot is deployed. In addition, we propose an agenda for future research that addresses the associated cultural challenges of introducing social robots into organizational contexts.

Keywords Social robot · Organizational culture · Embedded values

1 Introduction

A new generation of robots has emerged. Unlike conventional industrial robots that perform repetitive tasks in a delimited area in factories, this relatively new type of robot is characterized by sociality, which means that it has the ability to express emotions, communicate, and learn from other agents [1]. Compared to industrial robots, social robots no longer function as mere “machines” that perform some predefined task such as assembling car parts. They are able to cooperate and interact

T. Schmiedel (B) · J. Jäger · V. J. Zhong School of Business, Institute for Information Systems, FHNW University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Peter Merian-Strasse 86, 4002 Basel, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

J. Jäger e-mail: [email protected]

V. J. Zhong e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 R. Dornberger (ed.), New Trends in Business Information Systems and Technology, Studies in Systems, Decision and Control 294, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48332-6_11

163

164 T. Schmiedel et al.

autonomously with human partners to achieve mutual goals based on their cognitive abilities.

A variety of application areas for social robots is currently evolving. For example, social robots may assist patients in “checking in” at the doctors, support customers in hotel lobbies, or they can help students with their learning activities. This new kind of interaction with robots comes with challenges such as the integration of social robots in existing organizational contexts. This integration has to be tailored to the specific needs of each organization and be aligned with the organizational culture, so that the social robot can unfold its potential and contribute to increased organizational performance [2].

Particularly, the integration of social robots into organizational cultures, i.e. the acceptance among employees to interact with the social robot, will play a key role in social robot adoption. Social robots will increasingly collaborate with humans in the workplace, where they will take over autonomous roles in work processes. Hence, social robots will be part of the organizational culture and both human and robot behavior will mutually shape each other [3]. Thus, the concept of culture is an essential research field in robot design and robot integration in organizations.

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the role of culture in integrating social robots into organizational contexts. Therefore, we first give an overview of organi- zational application areas that current social robot research focuses on. Second, we conceptualize the role of culture in integrating social robots into work environments.

The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 specifies the concept of social robots and introduces main organizational application areas. Section 3 specifies the concept of culture and outlines how far current social robot research has addressed cultural aspects. Section 4 conceptualizes the role of culture regarding the adoption of social robots in organizations and suggests a research agenda. Section 5 concludes the chapter with a summary and an outlook.

2 Social Robots in Organizational Contexts

2.1 Social Robots

Although the history of robots might be traced back to the 3rd Century, B.C.E, when the first robotic bird—the Pigeon—was made using stream power [4], social robotics represent a relatively new study field. Over the past two decades, several attempts have been made to define the concept of a social robot. A review of definitions of social robots reveals that a variety of facets have been taken into account. Scholars from the field have not reached consensus on the typology of social robots. Social robots are generally understood as machines, applications, or autonomous agents [1]. Although the ability of social interaction is considered the main function of a social robot, some researchers also explicitly mention other functional skills such as task execution, assistance, and problem solving (e.g. [5, 6]). Furthermore, beyond

Social Robots in Organizational Contexts: The Role of Culture … 165

the interaction with humans, other researchers additionally include the interaction with the environment or other robots as one of the qualification criteria of a social robot [7]. Moreover, research has defined various attributes that characterize a social robot. While most definitions emphasize sociality and communicativeness, for some researchers, the physical embodiment or the possession of cognitive functions are very important elements of a social robot (e.g. [8]).

As the definition of the term social robot is still evolving, synthetized from the existing definitions, as listed in [7], we argue that a social robot in its simplest form is:

A physically embodied robot that possesses a certain degree of autonomy and a certain level of cognitive functions. A social robot engages in social interactions with humans and adheres to social norms.

The physical embodiment is emphasized to distinguish social robots from virtu- ally embodied agents (e.g. embodied conversational agents), which can also perform social interaction with its counter partner. Autonomy generally refers to the ability of the robot to perform processes and operations on its own [9]. Cognitive functions range from basic functions such as perception and memory to high-level functions such as speech and decision making [10]. Both autonomy and cognitive functions are required to perform social interactions, which are defined by Gist as “the recip- rocal influences that human beings exert on each other through interstimulation and response” (cited in [11], p. 14).

Thetermsocialrobotisoftenusedsynonymouslywithservicerobots.Unarguably, there is an overlap of the capabilities between social robots and service robots, which are robots that perform “useful tasks for humans” (see [12], p. 1). Both might be partially autonomous, possess some sort of cognitive functions, and carry out social interactions with their counterpart such as avoidance of collisions, communication through audio, visual, and written signals, collaboration in assembly tasks, etc.

To distinguish social robots from service robots, we suggest using the character- istics and the extent of social interactions of their main task as indicators. While the main task of a service robot is to perform a certain activity that physically supports humans, such as lifting, assembling, or cleaning [12], the main task of a social robot is to interact socially with people [13], for example through having a conversation, playing a game, answering questions, providing guidance, or engaging in learning activities. Despite these differences, however, we can expect that the capabilities of social and service robots become increasingly aligned over time. Even today, we can already identify robots that integrate both physical and verbal interaction with humans (e.g. Lio, which is designed for stationary healthcare support [14]).

2.2 Organizational Application Areas of Social Robots

The ability to interact socially with the user and engage with the user on an emotional level opens up new possibilities for the application of social robots in organizations.

166 T. Schmiedel et al.

In the domains of healthcare, education, and tourism, the use of social robots has beenintensivelystudied. Thefollowingsections giveanoverviewof theseapplication areas.

2.2.1 Healthcare

Several trends drive the use of social robots in healthcare: On the one hand, the demand for care has been increasing due to the globally ageing population [15] and the rising prevalence of people with disabilities [16]. On the other hand, the cost of care has continuously grown while the shortage of healthcare professionals is still considerable [17].

Social robots find a broad range of applications in healthcare. Research has mostly focused on two target groups: elderly people and children. When it comes to elderly people, researchers have investigated the use of social robots for various appli- cation scenarios, such as the treatment of mental health (e.g. dementia) [18, 19], promotion of psychological well-being [20, 21], support of physiotherapy [22] and companionship [23].

Research targeting children has mostly focused on involving social robots in the treatment of autistic spectrum disorder [18, 24, 25], in which a social robot can take on various roles to achieve the therapeutic goals [26]. In addition, social robots are used in health elucidation (e.g. quizzes on diabetes knowledge) and well-being (e.g. distraction during vaccination) of children [27].

2.2.2 Education

A further popular application domain of social robots is education. In this context, social robots can take on the role of a teacher, teaching assistant, novice, companion, and peer [28]. Most research is aimed at children and the education of adolescents [28].

Language learning and teaching is increasingly using social robots. A meta-review [29] showed that social robots were predominantly involved in vocabulary learning. However, a few studies also reported how robots can help improve reading skills, grammar learning, and sign language [29].

In further application scenarios, social robots acted, for example, as teaching assistants to support learning activities in small groups [30]. In [31], the authors reported that the combination of the robot and the think-aloud strategy achieved positive effects on children’s learning outcomes.

Social Robots in Organizational Contexts: The Role of Culture … 167

2.2.3 Tourism

A growing number of research has investigated the use of robots in tourism including organizations such as hotels, museums, and shopping malls, where social robots often play the role of an information provider.

In the hospitality and catering sector, the robot is preferably seen as a recep- tionist and concierge, performing tasks related to logistics and goods delivery, taking customer orders, providing information, and processing payments [32, 33]. Furthermore, from the hotel manager’s perspective, registering guests for breakfast, connecting the guest to the hotel desk via video conference, and guiding the guests to the desired location are considered useful applications [34].

Additionally, application scenarios in shopping malls are similar to hospitality, with a primary focus on information provision, guidance [35–38], and entertainment [39]. Social robots also have the potential to be used at the airport to accompany passengers during their flight transfer [40].

2.3 Need for Cultural Integration of Social Robots in Organizational Contexts

Many application scenarios for social robots are still in a research and testing phase and scholars are working intensively on the technical realization and improvement of the use of social robots. However, studies have also shown that the integration of social robots in given contexts is also culturally challenging, since people do not necessarily accept social robots as interaction partners, especially in tasks that require intensive relationship building (e.g. in education or healthcare) [41].

3 Culture as a Concept in Social Robot Research

3.1 Culture

Culture is a concept that is difficult to grasp and researchers have defined it in many different ways. Basically, many researchers agree that the essential elements that define culture are values [42, 43], which are concepts of the desirable—in other terms, what a group deems proper to want or pursue [44]. For example, a group may appreciate the value reliability and, thus, act accordingly through being there for each other, or a group may appreciate the value individualism and find it preferable that everyone can do as they like.

168 T. Schmiedel et al.

This specification leads to another important aspect of culture: the concept always referstoacertainsocialsystem,beitagroupoffriends,anorganizationorageograph- ical region [45]. Researchers refer to this lens as levels of culture, such as national culture, professional culture, organizational culture, and group culture [46].

Considering these specifications of culture, organizations have to understand which cultural levels and associated values are already in place or are required for a successful integration of technologies [47]. As culture has a strong influence on (work) behavior and thus on organizational performance [48], it should also be considered as an important factor in social robot research.

3.2 Culture as Part of Social Robot Studies

Little research is addressing cultural aspects of social robots and human–robot collaboration because the vast majority of robotics studies come from the fields of engineering and computer sciences and focus on technological robot development and performance. When robotics studies investigate culture, they mainly focus on differences in national culture to optimize the functionalities and design of robots [49–51]. Next, a brief overview of the study of culture in relation to robots in the three organizational application areas described above will be given.

3.2.1 Healthcare

Only a few robotics studies focus on the concept of culture in healthcare, even though cultural competence is essential in this context [52]. A robot should adapt to the specific cultural context in which it assists people, such as healthcare workers, elderly people in domestic environments, or patients in hospitals. Especially patients and the elderly in need of care are in a vulnerable state and deployed care robots should represent the cultural values that are needed in this context. Further, a person’s attitude towards health and self-care strongly depends on their cultural background [53]—another cultural aspect social robot designers should take into account.

The few culture-related studies of robots in healthcare either address the imple- mentation of surgical robots in different national cultures [54], or they focus on how people perceive and interact with robots at a national or cross-national level in different application scenarios [55–58]. These studies identify the cultural compe- tence of robots as highly relevant for their application in healthcare and acknowledge cultural differences with regard to the investigated concepts. However, these studies mostly address cultural values in relation to national culture and do not examine further cultural layers that predominate in healthcare, such as organizational values and patient values.

Social Robots in Organizational Contexts: The Role of Culture … 169

3.2.2 Education

There is also little research on the cultural requirements of social robot implementa- tion in education or the cultural values embedded in educational robots.

Few studies on robots in the education sector, focusing on culture, investigate either attitudes towards robots or user acceptance [59–61] as well as child–robot interaction across national cultures [62]. Some studies investigate the difference between Eastern and Western cultures and their openness and willingness to use robots in educational contexts [63].

The underlying assumption is that culture has a strong influence on the acceptance and use of robots, as confirmed by these studies. Overall, most research conducted on social robots in education focuses on identifying and evaluating learning scenarios and applications without highlighting the culture or underlying values.

3.2.3 Tourism

With regard to tourism, some studies on robots focus on their integration into museums to innovate cultural heritage [64, 65]. Further research investigates the cultural differences in attitudes towards robots in Eastern and Western national cultures [66]. Some researchers examine for example the national evolution of robot culture in Japan [67].

Ideas for robot applications in tourism are manifold, however, the concept of culture is not yet being studied intensely at many levels other than national culture. Regardless of the application scenario, the consideration of cultural values is essential to successfully integrate social robots into organizations together with an appropriate design of these robots and the respective human–robot interactions.

3.3 Lack of Focus on Culture in Social Robot Research

Overall research on social robots hardly focuses on organizational culture, even though existing studies and conceptual research emphasize its importance [52]. Nevertheless, we can identify a strong need for research that addresses not only the national, but all different levels of culture, and considers cultural values that should be embedded in social robots for their successful integration in organizations [68]. In fact, not only the strategies and goals of an organization determine the success or failure of technology integration, but also the acceptance of the users who determine whether the integration of an artefact into the work routines makes sense [69, 70].

170 T. Schmiedel et al.

4 The Role of Culture in Integrating Social Robots in Organizations

The integration of robots in organizations influences organizational structures and workflows as well as roles and responsibilities. Following prior research on the implementation of novel approaches in organizations [71], we argue that organiza- tions have to understand their cultural readiness for the integration of social robots in order to design a work environment that enables meaningful human–robot collabo- ration. In other words, we recommend that organizations are aware of which of their cultural values support or hinder the implementation of social robots.

We take a value-based perspective to conceptualize the cultural integration of social robots [68]. In fact, research has called for a value-sensitive focus on social robots. Particularly, the value-sensitive design approach has become popular in recent years. It emphasizes the need to integrate human values in technology through a bottom-up approach [72]. Accordingly, we focus on the type of values to consider for the cultural integration of social robots into organizational contexts.

4.1 Conceptualization

Regarding the cultural integration of social robots into organizations, we identify two key sets of values based on previous research [71]. First of all, we need to consider the organizational culture through the values that employees live by in the organization. In other words, we need to have a good understanding of how far the organizational culturesupportstheintegrationofsocialrobotsorhowfarthegivencultureneedstobe influenced so that social robots can actually support the organizational performance. Second, we need to consider the values that are embedded in the specific social robot that an organization intends to integrate. Examples for such values could be fun, modesty, control, and companionship.

The overlap of these two types of values (organizational values and social robot values) is what we call the cultural fit (following [73]). A high cultural fit exists when the organizational culture embraces values that are also embedded in social robots. A low cultural fit means that the social robot values oppose the organizational culture. In the latter case, cultural resistance regarding the application of the social robot can be expected.

Accordingly, we suggest that a cultural fit between the values embedded in social robots and the values lived in the organizational context has a positive influence on social robot performance, i.e. the degree to which the social robot supports the orga- nization in achieving its goals. More specifically, we argue that social robots which culturallyfittheorganizationprovidetheorganizationwithperformancebenefitssuch as more efficient and effective business processes. For example, social robots may provide information more quickly, more accurately, and more cost-efficiently than

Social Robots in Organizational Contexts: The Role of Culture … 171

Fig. 1 Conceptualization of the role of cultural values in social robot integration

employees. We call such performance benefits social robot performance. Figure 1 illustrates the relations described above.

4.2 Research Agenda

Following the above conceptualization, we propose various fields in the intersection of social robots and culture that future research can follow up on. In particular, we identify three fields of research that future studies can work on: social robot values, organizational values, and social robot performance.

For each of these fields, we identify research questions and potential methods that researchers can apply to address these questions. Table 1 provides an overview of the research agenda we propose in the field of social robotics.

As to the field of social robot values, future research may at first study existing socialrobotsandfindoutwhichvaluesarealreadyembeddedinthem.Interviewswith social robot designers and users can help identify the as-is integration of particular values. Since currently embedded values may be highly diverse and have various labels depending on people’s perceptions, we consider it relevant to categorize the identified values to be able to compare values embedded in social robots on a more abstract level. Focus groups with categorization exercises and discussions would be a

172 T. Schmiedel et al.

Table 1 Agenda for future research at the intersection of culture and social robots

Field Research questions Potential methods

Social robot values What kind of values are embedded in current social robots?

Expert interviews

How can values embedded in social robots be classified?

Focus groups

Which values should be embedded in social robots?

Delphi study

Organizational values Which values positively influence the integration of social robots in organizations?

Survey

How can we assess the cultural readiness of an organization to integrate social robots?

Scale development

Social robot performance How can we assess social robot performance (e.g. the contribution of social robots to increased organizational efficiency/effectiveness)?

Scale development

Which cultural contexts are most beneficial for high social robot performance?

Survey

suitable way to collect data for this purpose. Finally, we consider it most important to examine which values should be integrated into social robots for a particular industry context. We recommend conducting a comprehensive Delphi study with experts from various backgrounds (e.g. designers, users; academia, practice).

Regarding organizational values, future research could examine which values have a positive effect on the integration of social robots in organizations. For example, based on a survey, researchers could analyze what kind of organizational values support the integration of a social robot among employees. Furthermore, a scale/measurement instrument could be developed to examine the cultural readiness of an organization to integrate social robots. Such a scale could measure how far an organizational culture already embraces those values embedded in a particular social robot to anticipate potential difficulties and required cultural changes for a successful social robot implementation.

Regarding social robot performance, future research may also develop a scale to measure the performance of social robots. This scale could assess how far the social robot contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational processes (e.g. what factors determine efficient and effective processes supported by a social robot, and how can we measure them?). Finally, researchers could examine what kind of cultural contexts support the performance of social robots the most. A survey could be used that builds on the developed scale for social robot performance and on an assessment of the organizational culture.

Theexamples showabroadrangeof futureresearchpossibilities at theintersection of social robots and cultural values, and we call for studies following up on these examples.

Social Robots in Organizational Contexts: The Role of Culture … 173

5 Conclusion

Our paper addresses the role of culture in the application of social robots. We can observe a lack of research tackling cultural challenges with regard to the integration of social robots into organizational contexts. Based on this finding, we propose a conceptualization of the role of cultural values in social robot integration and we derive an agenda for future research to follow up on the research need we identified.

We encourage fellow researchers to take a value-based perspective and address the call for research in this area [74]. A better understanding of the cultural requirements to successfully integrate social robots into organizations will help practitioners to achieve more powerful performance benefits through the usage of social robots, it will help robot designers develop social robots with integrated cultural values, and it will help employees and customers to see social robots as part of their cultural groups.

References

1. Hegel, F., Muhl, C., Wrede, B., Hielscher-Fastabend, M., Sagerer, G.: Understanding social robots. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, pp. 169–174. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2009)

2. Duffy, B.R., Joue, G., Bourke, J.: Issues in assessing performance of social robots. In: Presented at the WSEAS International Conference on Robotics, Skiathos Island (2002)

3. Šabanović, S.: Robots in society, society in robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2(4), 439–450 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0066-7

4. Schaefer, K.E.: The Perception and Measurement of Human-Robot Trust, Dissertation, University of Central Florida (2013)

5. Castro-González, Á., Malfaz, M., Salichs, M.A.: Learning the selection of actions for an autonomous social robot by reinforcement learning based on motivations. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3(4), 427–441 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0113-z

6. Duffy, B.R.: Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42(3), 177–190 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3

7. Sarrica, M., Brondi, S., Fortunati, L.: How many facets does a “social robot” have? a review of scientific and popular definitions online. Inf. Technol. People (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/ ITP-04-2018-0203

8. Li, H., Cabibihan, J.-J., Tan, Y.K.: Towards an effective design of social robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3(4), 333–335 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0121-z

9. Beer, J.M., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. J. Hum. Robot. Interact. 3(2), 74–99 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5898/ JHRI.3.2.Beer

10. Glisky, E.L.: Changes in cognitive function in human aging. In: Riddle, D.R. (ed.) Brain Aging: Models, Methods, and Mechanisms. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (FL) (2007)

11. Carpentier, N.: Differentiating between access, interaction and participation. Conjunct. Transdiscipl. J. Cult. Particip. 2(2), 7–28 (2015)

12. International Federation of Robotics: Introduction into Service Robots. https://ifr.org/service- robots

13. Hegel, F., Muhl, C., Wrede, B., Hielscher-Fastabend, M., Sagerer, G.: Understanding social robots. In: Presented at the Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, 2009. ACHI’09. Second International Conference February (2009)

174 T. Schmiedel et al.

14. Minor, L.: Es darf nicht passieren, dass Lio jemanden umfährt , https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ zuerich/region/seine-geduld-ist-endlos/story/17626511, (2019)

15. World Health Organization: World Report on Ageing and Health 2015. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (2015)

16. World Health Organization: World Report on Disability. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (2011)

17. Riek, L.D.: Healthcare robotics. Commun. ACM 60(11), 68–78 (2017) 18. Rabbitt, S.M., Kazdin, A.E., Scassellati, B.: Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental

healthcare interventions: Applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 35, 35–46 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.07.001

19. Whelan, S., Murphy, K., Barrett, E., Krusche, C., Santorelli, A., Casey, D.: Factors affecting the acceptability of social robots by older adults including people with dementia or cognitive impairment: a literature review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 10(5), 643–668 (2018). https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12369-018-0471-x

20. Chen, S.-C., Jones, C., Moyle, W.: Social robots for depression in older adults: a systematic review. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 50(6), 612–622 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12423

21. Kachouie, R., Sedighadeli, S., Abkenar, A.B.: The role of socially assistive robots in elderly wellbeing: a systematic review. In: Rau, P.-L.P. (ed.) Cross-Cultural Design, pp. 669–682. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)

22. Lagrange, F.J., Jacq, F.: Developing an innovative oral unit dose robot dispenser: patient care performance and industrial perspectives. Le Pharmacien Hospitalier et Clinicien. 49(2), e1–e14 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phclin.2014.03.001

23. Abdi, J., Al-Hindawi, A., Ng, T., Vizcaychipi, M.P.: Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open 8(2), e018815 (2018). https://doi.org/10. 1136/bmjopen-2017-018815

24. Pennisi, P., Tonacci, A., Tartarisco, G., Billeci, L., Ruta, L., Gangemi, S., Pioggia, G.: Autism and social robotics: a systematic review. Autism Res. 9(2), 165–183 (2016). https://doi.org/10. 1002/aur.1527

25. Robinson, N.L., Cottier, T.V., Kavanagh, D.J.: Psychosocial health interventions by social robots: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J. Med. Internet Res. 21(5), e13203 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2196/13203

26. Cabibihan, J.-J., Javed, H., Ang, M., Aljunied, S.M.: Why robots? a survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5(4), 593–618 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0202-2

27. Beran, T.N., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Vanderkooi, O.G., Kuhn, S.: Reducing children’s pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: a novel and effective application of humanoid robotics. Vaccine 31(25), 2772–2777 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.03.056

28. Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., Tanaka, F.: Social robots for education. A Rev. Sci. Robot. 3(21), eaat5954 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat 5954

29. van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., van der Ven, S., Leseman, P.: Social robots for language learning: a review. Rev. Educ. Res. 89(2), 259–295 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0034654318821286

30. Rosenberg-Kima, R., Koren, Y., Yachini, M., Gordon, G.: Human-Robot-Collaboration (HRC): social robots as teaching assistants for training activities in small groups. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 522–523, Daegu, South Korea (2019)

31. Ramachandran, A., Huang, C.-M., Gartland, E., Scassellati, B.: Thinking aloud with a tutoring robot to enhance learning. In: Hri ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 Acm/Ieee International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 59–68. Assoc Computing Machinery, New York (2018)

32. Ivanov, S., Webster, C., Garenko, A.: Young Russian adults’ attitudes towards the potential use of robots in hotels. Technol. Soc. 55(November 2018), 24–32 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.techsoc.2018.06.004

Social Robots in Organizational Contexts: The Role of Culture … 175

33. Lai, C.-J., Tsai, C.-P.: Design of Introducing Service Robot into Catering Services. In: Proceed- ings of the 2018 International Conference on Service Robotics Technologies (ICSRT ‘18). ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018)

34. Pinillos, R., Marcos, S., Feliz, R., Zalama, E., Gomez-Garcia-Bermejo, J.: Long-term assess- ment of a service robot in a hotel environment. Robotics and Autonomous Systems. 79(May 2016), 40–57 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.01.014

35. Brodeur, T., Cater, A., Vaz, J.C., Oh, P.: Directory navigation with robotic assistance. In: 2018 IEEE 8th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC). IEEE, New York (2018)

36. Chen, Y., Wu, F., Shuai, W., Chen, X.: Robots serve humans in public places-KeJia robot as a shopping assistant. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 14(3) (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/172988141 7703569

37. Satake, S., Hayashi, K., Nakatani, K., Kanda, T.: Field trial of an information-providing robot in a shopping mall. In: 2015 Ieee/Rsj International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (iros), pp. 1832–1839. IEEE, New York (2015)

38. Sabelli, A.M., Kanda, T.: Robovie as a mascot: a qualitative study for long-term presence of robots in a shopping mall. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8(2), 211–221 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12369-015-0332-9

39. Foster, M.E., Alami, R., Gestranius, O., Lemon, O., Niemelä, M., Odobez, J.-M., Pandey, A.K.: The MuMMER Project: Engaging Human-Robot Interaction in Real-World Public Spaces. In: Agah, A., Cabibihan, J.-J., Howard, A.M., Salichs, M.A., He, H. (eds.) Social Robotics, pp. 753–763. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)

40. Triebel, R., Arras, K., Alami, R., Beyer, L., Breuers, S., Chatila, R., Chetouani, M., Cremers, D., Evers, V., Fiore, M., Hung, H., Ramírez, O.A.I., Joosse, M., Khambhaita, H., Kucner, T., Leibe, B., Lilienthal, A.J., Linder, T., Lohse, M., Magnusson, M., Okal, B., Palmieri, L., Rafi, U., van Rooij, M., Zhang, L.: SPENCER: a socially aware service robot for passenger guidance and help in busy airports. In: Wettergreen, D.S., Barfoot, T.D. (eds.) Field and Service Robotics: Results of the 10th International Conference, pp. 607–622. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)

41. Commission, European: Public Attitutes Towards Robots. European Commission, Brussels (2012)

42. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, New York (2005)

43. Schein, E.H.: Organizational Culture and Leadership. Wiley, San Francisco (2010) 44. Kluckhohn, C.: 2. values and value-orientations in the theory of action: an exploration in

definition and classification. In: Toward a General Theory of Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1951)

45. Tajfel, H.: Social categorization. In: Moscovici, S. (ed.) Introduction à la psychologie sociale, pp. 272–302. Larousse, Paris (1973)

46. Karahanna, E., Evaristo, J., Srite, M.: Levels of culture and individual behavior: an investigative perspective. J. Global Inf. Manage. 13(2), 1–20 (2005). https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.200504 0101

47. Spiegel, M., Schmiedel, T., Brocke, J.V.: What makes change harder—or easier: how embedded values fit organizational culture. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 58(3), 88–89 (2017)

48. Kotter, J.P., Heskett, J.L.: Corporate Culture and Performance. The Free Press, New York (1992)

49. Trovato, G., Lucho, C., Paredes, R.: She’s electric—the influence of body proportions on perceived gender of robots across cultures. Robotics 7(3), 50 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/ robotics7030050

50. Kanngiesser, P., Itakura, S., Zhou, Y., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Hood, B.: The role of social eye-gaze in children’s and adults’ ownership attributions to robotic agents in three cultures. Interact. Stud. 16(1), 1–28 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.1.01kan

51. Kamaruddin, N., Wahab, A., Quek, C.: Cultural dependency analysis for understanding speech emotion. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(5), 5115–5133 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011. 11.028

176 T. Schmiedel et al.

52. Bruno, B., Chong, N.Y., Kamide, H., Kanoria, S., Lee, J., Lim, Y., Pandey, A.K., Papadopoulos, C., Papadopoulos, I., Pecora, F., Saffiotti, A., Sgorbissa, A.: Paving the way for culturally competent robots: a position paper. In: 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 553–560 (2017)

53. Papadopoulos, I., Koulouglioti, C.: The influence of culture on attitudes towards Humanoid and animal-like robots: an integrative review. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 50(8), 653–665 (2018). https:// doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12422

54. Cunningham, S., Chellali, A., Jaffre, I., Classe, J., Cao, C.G.L.: Effects of experience and workplace culture in human-robot team interaction in robotic surgery: a case study. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 5(1), 75–88 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0170-y

55. Rudovic, O., Lee, J., Mascarell-Maricic, L., Schuller, B.W., Picard, R.W.: Measuring engage- ment in robot-assisted autism therapy: a cross-cultural study. Front. Robot. AI. 4, 1–17 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00036

56. Hashim, R., Mahamood, S.F.: Humanoid robots for skill augmentation of gifted children: teachers’ perceptions and islamic implications. Procedia Comput. Sci. 42, 345–350 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.11.072

57. Bidin, S.A.H., Lokman, A.M., Mohd, W.A.R.W., Tsuchiya, T.: Initial intervention study of Kansei robotic implementation for elderly. Procedia Comput. Sci. 105, 87–92 (2017). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.01.205

58. Cortellessa, G., Scopelliti, M., Tiberio, L., Svedberg, G.K., Loutfi, A., Pecora, F.: A cross- cultural evaluation of domestic assistive robots. In: AAAI Fall Symposium: AI in Eldercare: New Solutions to Old Problems, pp. 24–31, 7–9 Nov, Arlington, Virginia (2008)

59. Reich-Stiebert, N., Eyssel, F.: Learning with educational companion robots? toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for education robots. Int. J. Social Robot. 7(5), 875–888 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9

60. Conti D., Cattani A., Nuovo S.D., Nuovo, A.D.: A cross-cultural study of acceptance and use of robotics by future psychology practitioners. In: 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). pp. 555–560 (2015)

61. Han, J., Hyun, E., Kim, M., Cho, H., Kanda, T., Nomura, T: The cross-cultural acceptance of tutoring robots with augmented reality services. Int. J. Digit. Content Technol. Appl. 3(2), 95–102 (2009). https://doi.org/10.4156/jdcta.vol3.issue2.han

62. Shahid, S., Krahmer, E., Swerts, M.: Child-robot interaction across cultures: how does playing a game with a social robot compare to playing a game alone or with a friend? Comput. Hum. Behav. 40, 86–100 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.043

63. Choi, J.-H., Lee, J.-Y., Han, J.-H.: Comparison of cultural acceptability for educational robots between Europe and Korea. J. Inf. Process. Syst. 4(3), 97–102 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3745/ JIPS.2008.4.3.97

64. Pang, W.-C., Wong, C.-Y., Seet, G.: Exploring the use of robots for museum settings and for learning heritage languages and cultures at the chinese heritage centre. Presence-Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 26(4), 420–435 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00306

65. Germak,C.,Lupetti,M.L.,Giuliano,L.,Ng,M.E.K.:Robotsandculturalheritage:newmuseum experiences. J. Sci. Technol. Arts. 7(2), 47–57 (2015)

66. Shiomi, M., Hagita, N.: Social acceptance toward a childcare support robot system: web-based cultural differences investigation and a field study in Japan. Adv. Robot. 31(14), 727–738 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2017.1345322

67. Kovacic, M.: The making of national robot history in Japan: monozukuri, enculturation and cultural lineage of robots. Crit. Asian Stud. 50(4), 572–590 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14672715.2018.1512003

68. van Wynsberghe, A.: Designing robots for care: care centered value-sensitive design. Sci. Eng. Ethics 19(2), 407–433 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6

69. Hasse, C.: How robots challenge institutional practices. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. (2018, in press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.04.003

70. Mutlu, B., Forlizzi, J.: Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environ- mental factors in human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 287–294. ACM (2008)

Social Robots in Organizational Contexts: The Role of Culture … 177

71. Schmiedel, T., vom Brocke, J., Recker, J.C.: Cultural fitness for business process management : what is it and what is it worth? The World Financial Review. Nov, 21–24 (2012)

72. Davis, J., Nathan, L.P.: Value sensitive design: applications, adaptations, and critiques. In: Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: sources, theory, values and application domains, pp. 11–40 (2015)

73. vom Brocke, J., Sinnl, T.: Culture in business process management: a literature review. Bus. Process Manage. J. 17(2), 357–378 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151111122383

74. van den Hoven, J.: ICT and value sensitive design. In: Goujon, P., Lavelle, S., Duquenoy, P., Kimppa, K., Laurent, V. (eds.) The Information Society: Innovation, Legitimacy, Ethics and Democracy In honor of Professor Jacques Berleur s.j. pp. 67–72. Springer US (2007)