IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aiw/wpaper/24.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Care-Dependent are Less Averse to Care Robots: Comparing Intuitions of the Affected and the Non-Affected

Author

Listed:
  • Manuela Schönmann

    (Faculty of Computer Science, Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany; TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany)

  • Anja Bodenschatz

    (Faculty of Computer Science, Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany; TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Seminar for Corporate Development and Business Ethics, Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany)

  • Matthias Uhl

    (Faculty of Computer Science, Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany; TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany)

  • Gari Walkowitz

    (Faculty of Business Administration, Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany)

Abstract

The world’s population will continue to age significantly in the near future. One strategy to address the growing gap between supply and demand of professional caregivers in many regions is the use of care robots. Although there have been numerous ethical debates about the use of robots in elderly care, the important question of how (potentially) affected people perceive situations with care robots compared to situations with human caregivers has not yet been systematically examined. Using a large-scale experimental vignette study, we investigated the influence of the nature of the caregiver on participants’ perceived well-being when confronted with different care situations in nursing homes. Our results show that the views of people already affected by care dependency regarding care robots differ substantially from the views of people not affected by care dependency. The non-affected strongly devalued care robots compared to human caregivers, especially in a service context. This devaluation was not found among those affected; their perceived well-being was not influenced by the nature of the caregiver. These findings also proved robust when controlling for people’s attitudes toward robots, gender, and age.

Suggested Citation

  • Manuela Schönmann & Anja Bodenschatz & Matthias Uhl & Gari Walkowitz, 2022. "The Care-Dependent are Less Averse to Care Robots: Comparing Intuitions of the Affected and the Non-Affected," Munich Papers in Political Economy 24, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
  • Handle: RePEc:aiw:wpaper:24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cms.mgt.tum.de/fileadmin/mgt.tum.de/faculty_and_research/mppe/24_Manuscript_Care_Robots_SORO.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248.
    2. Dunlop, D.D. & Hughes, S.L. & Manheim, L.M., 1997. "Disability in activities of daily living: Patterns of change and a hierarchy of disability," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(3), pages 378-383.
    3. Beatrice Van der Heijden & Christine Brown Mahoney & Yingzi Xu, 2019. "Impact of Job Demands and Resources on Nurses’ Burnout and Occupational Turnover Intention Towards an Age-Moderated Mediation Model for the Nursing Profession," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-22, June.
    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. David M. Cutler & Adriana Lleras-Muney & Tom Vogl, 2008. "Socioeconomic Status and Health: Dimensions and Mechanisms," NBER Working Papers 14333, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Andrzej Baniak & Peter Grajzl, 2017. "Optimal Liability when Consumers Mispredict Product Usage," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 202-243.
    3. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    4. Humphreys, Brad & Ruseski, Jane & Zhou, Li, 2015. "Physical Activity, Present Bias, and Habit Formation: Theory and Evidence from Longitudinal Data," Working Papers 2015-6, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    5. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    6. Michel, Christian, 2017. "Market regulation of voluntary add-on contracts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 239-268.
    7. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    8. Bonan, Jacopo & Cattaneo, Cristina & D'Adda, Giovanna & Tavoni, Massimo, 2023. "Daily Temperature and Sales of Energy-using Durables," RFF Working Paper Series 23-43, Resources for the Future.
    9. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    10. Pan, Yinghao & Qin, Yu & Zhang, Fan & Zhu, Hongjia, 2022. "Acquiring land in cold winter: Consequences and possible explanations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Clément Bellet, 2017. "Essays on Inequality, Social Preferences and Consumer Behavior," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/vbu6kd1s68o, Sciences Po.
    12. Roman Inderst & Marco Ottaviani, 2013. "Sales Talk, Cancellation Terms and the Role of Consumer Protection," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 1002-1026.
    13. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    14. Stefan Lamp, 2023. "Sunspots That Matter: The Effect of Weather on Solar Technology Adoption," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(4), pages 1179-1219, April.
    15. Raj Chetty, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 1-33, May.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:81-89 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1047-1073, September.
    18. Philippe Jehiel & Andrew Lilico, 2010. "Smoking Today and Stopping Tomorrow: a Limited Foresight Perspective," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 56(2), pages 141-164, June.
    19. Jaspers, Esther, 2018. "Opening up on consumer materialism," Other publications TiSEM a21cb1c8-5af1-46cc-9ea0-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    21. Rafael Di Tella & Robert MacCulloch, 2008. "Happiness Adaptation to Income beyond "Basic Needs"," NBER Working Papers 14539, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Care robots; Elderly nursing care; Robot aversion; Well-being; Vignette experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aiw:wpaper:24. 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: MPPE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwtumde.html .

    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.