面對現代老化的問題，社交輔助機器人被認為具有潛力於日常生活中支持樂齡族，協助其順利在家安老、活躍老化。然而樂齡族是否能接受並於生活中使用社交輔助機器人？社交輔助機器人於樂齡族生活中的功能定位為何？本研究旨在探討樂齡族對於社交輔助機器人的接受度及影響接受度之因素，此外以高認知需要之工具型日常活動及精神型日常活動相關功能作為範疇，探索樂齡族對社交輔助機器人功能之偏好與原因。
本研究招募三十一位樂齡族作為受測者。本研究使用兩個方法傳遞情境以探索主題：於實驗中納入機器人原型為刺激物，樂齡族於九個互動情境下與機器人互動；實驗中亦使用故事版方法作為輔助。樂齡族將填寫問卷、勾選功能列表，以此獲取樂齡族對於社交輔助機器人之接受度及其功能之偏好相關之量化數據。質化資料則根據受訪者之訪談內容整理並進一步編碼，以闡述樂齡族對於接受機器人及其功能偏好與否之原因。
綜合分析結果發現樂齡族對於機器人持正面態度且有一定接受程度，感知有用性、感知易用性及感知愉悅性對於使用意圖具影響力。「語音操控方便省時」、「感覺像與人互動」為對機器人有使用意圖者提及最多的原因。樂齡族偏好提供娛樂、輔助獲取資訊、監測居家安全、資料收集、智慧家庭類別功能，一半受訪者認為機器人得在日常生活中的扮演小幫手、秘書的角色。最後基於研究結果，本研究針以樂齡族為服務對象之社交輔助機器人提出四點設計建議，並進一步對於社交輔助機器人功能給予開發建議。

Encountering the problems of aging nowadays, socially assistive robots (SAR) are considered potential to support the elders in daily basis and help them achieve active aging at home. Two issues are brought up to be concerned: First of all, would the elders be willing to include SAR in daily life. Secondly, which functions of SAR would the elders prefer the most; in other words, what kind of role do the elders think SARs could play in their daily life? This paper aims to explore the elderly's perception and acceptance of socially assistive robot. Furthermore, the elders' preference of functions of SAR is explored, which are related to high cognitive demanded instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) and enhanced activities of daily living (EADLs).
A total of 31 elders were recruited. The experiment was conducted via two methods. The robot prototype was used as stimulus, and the elders interacted with the robot under 9 scenarios; storyboard method was also used in experiment. The elders were asked to complete the questionnaires which provided the quantitative data related to the elders' perception and acceptance of SAR and their preference of functions of SAR. Qualitative data assessed from the interview were coded and analyzed to explain whether the elders accept SAR and their preference of functions of SAR.
The result shows that the elders hold positive attitude to the acceptance of SAR, and perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived enjoyment are found to influence the elders' intention to use SAR. The convenience of verbally controlling SAR and similarity of actual person interaction are two predominant reasons contributing to the elders' intention to use SAR. "Entertainment", "home safety monitoring ", "data collecting", "smart home" are the more preferred functions, and half of the participants think that SAR could possibly become an assistant in their daily life. Based on the result, 4 suggestions about the design of SAR were concluded, and advice about the future development of the functions of SAR was further given.

1. 白麗. (2018). 陪伴型機器人使用者經驗評估─ 以智慧居家機器人 Zenbo 為例. 福祉科技與服務管理學刊, 6(3).
2. 李傳房、江宇震（2016）。以服務設計觀點探討樂齡族生態導覽服務歷程體驗。設計學報，21 （1），61-83。
3. 王明堂（2012）。關懷樂齡族的療癒系玩具之設計方向探討。設計學報，17（2），1-24。
4. Baisch, S., Kolling, T., Schall, A., Rühl, S., Selic, S., Kim, Z., ... & Knopf, M. (2017). Acceptance of social robots by elder people: does psychosocial functioning matter?. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(2), 293-307.
5. Beard, J. R., Officer, A., De Carvalho, I. A., Sadana, R., Pot, A. M., Michel, J. P., ... & Thiyagarajan, J. A. (2016). The World report on ageing and health: a policy framework for healthy ageing. The lancet, 387(10033), 2145-2154.
6. Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G. J., Jonker, P., & De Witte, L. (2012). Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into effects and effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 13(2), 114-120.
7. Broekens, J., Heerink, M., & Rosendal, H. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 94-103.
8. Bouma, H., Fozard, J. L., & Van Bronswijk, J. E. M. H. (2009). Gerontechnology as a field of endeavour. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 68-75.
9. Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collaboration technology use: Integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 9-54.
10. Burton-Jones, A., & Straub Jr, D. W. (2006). Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Information systems research, 17(3), 228-246.
11. Caleb-Solly, P., Dogramadzi, S., Huijnen, C. A., & Heuvel, H. V. D. (2018). Exploiting ability for human adaptation to facilitate improved human-robot interaction and acceptance. The Information Society, 34(3), 153-165.
12. Chanseau, A., Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., Lakatos, G., & Salem, M. (2018, August). Does the Appearance of a Robot Influence People's Perception of Task Criticality?. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1057-1062). IEEE.
13. Cavallo, F., Esposito, R., Limosani, R., Manzi, A., Bevilacqua, R., Felici, E., ... & Dario, P. (2018). Robotic services acceptance in smart environments with older adults: user satisfaction and acceptability study. Journal of medical Internet research, 20(9), e264.
14. Chen, T. L., Bhattacharjee, T., Beer, J. M., Ting, L. H., Hackney, M. E., Rogers, W. A., & Kemp, C. C. (2017). Older adults’ acceptance of a robot for partner dance-based exercise. PloS one, 12(10).
15. Chesney, T. (2006). An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments.
16. Chu, L., Chen, H. W., Cheng, P. Y., Ho, P., Weng, I. T., Yang, P. L., ... & Fung, H. H. (2019). Identifying Features that Enhance Older Adults’ Acceptance of Robots: A Mixed Methods Study. Gerontology, 65(4), 441-450.
17. Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and aging, 21(2), 333.
18. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
19. De Carolis, B., Ferilli, S., & Palestra, G. (2017). Simulating empathic behavior in a social assistive robot. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 76(4), 5073-5094.
20. Di Nuovo, A., Broz, F., Wang, N., Belpaeme, T., Cangelosi, A., Jones, R., ... & Dario, P. (2018). The multi-modal interface of Robot-Era multi-robot services tailored for the elderly. Intelligent Service Robotics, 11(1), 109-126.
21. Eftring, H., & Frennert, S. (2016). Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 49(4), 274-281.
22. Feil-Seifer, D., & Mataric, M. J. (2005, June). Defining socially assistive robotics. In 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005. (pp. 465-468). IEEE.
23. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
24. García-Soler, Á., Facal, D., Díaz-Orueta, U., Pigini, L., Blasi, L., & Qiu, R. (2018). Inclusion of service robots in the daily lives of frail older users: a step-by-step definition procedure on users' requirements. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 74, 191-196.
25. Gaudiello, I., Zibetti, E., Lefort, S., Chetouani, M., & Ivaldi, S. (2016). Trust as indicator of robot functional and social acceptance. An experimental study on user conformation to iCub answers. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 633-655.
26. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS quarterly, 213-236.
27. Hans, M., Graf, B., & Schraft, R. D. (2002, September). Robotic home assistant care-o-bot: Past-present-future. In Proceedings. 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 380-385). IEEE.
28. Heerink, M. (2011, March). Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 147-148). IEEE.
29. Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. International journal of social robotics, 2(4), 361-375.
30. Johnson, M. J., Johnson, M. A., Sefcik, J. S., Cacchione, P. Z., Mucchiani, C., Lau, T., & Yim, M. (2017). Task and design requirements for an affordable mobile service robot for elder care in an all-inclusive care for elders assisted-living setting. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1-20.
31. Kachouie, R., Sedighadeli, S., Khosla, R., & Chu, M. T. (2014). Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(5), 369-393.
32. Karunarathne, D., Morales, Y., Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Ishiguro, H. (2019). Will Older Adults Accept a Humanoid Robot as a Walking Partner?. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(2), 343-358.
33. Kanamori, M., Suzuki, M., Oshiro, H., Tanaka, M., Inoguchi, T., Takasugi, H., ... & Yokoyama, T. (2003, July). Pilot study on improvement of quality of life among elderly using a pet-type robot. In Proceedings 2003 IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation. Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation for the New Millennium (Cat. No. 03EX694) (Vol. 1, pp. 107-112). IEEE.
34. Lawton, M. P. (1990). Aging and performance of home tasks. Human factors, 32(5), 527-536.
35. McGlynn, S. A., Kemple, S., Mitzner, T. L., King, C. H. A., & Rogers, W. A. (2017). Understanding the potential of PARO for healthy older adults. International journal of human-computer studies, 100, 33-47.
36. Moro, C., Lin, S., Nejat, G., & Mihailidis, A. (2019). Social Robots and Seniors: A Comparative Study on the Influence of Dynamic Social Features on Human–Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(1), 5-24.
37. Ng, J., Tan, O., Wong, A., & Kiat, K. W. (2012, November). Older adults' attitudes toward homes service robots. In Proceedings of the Workshop at SIGGRAPH Asia (pp. 87-90).
38. Nunnally, J. C. （1967）. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
39. Piau, A., Campo, E., Rumeau, P., Vellas, B., & Nourhashemi, F. (2014). Aging society and gerontechnology: A solution for an independent living?. The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 18(1), 97-112.
40. Prakash, A., & Rogers, W. A. (2015). Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: effects of human-likeness and task. International journal of social robotics, 7(2), 309-331.
41. Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., & Broadbent, E. (2014). The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: A review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(4), 575-591.
42. Rogers, W. A., Meyer, B., Walker, N., & Fisk, A. D. (1998). Functional limitations to daily living tasks in the aged: A focus group analysis. Human factors, 40(1), 111-125.
43. Smarr, C. A., Fausset, C. B., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Understanding the potential for robot assistance for older adults in the home environment. Georgia Institute of Technology.
44. Smarr, C. A., Mitzner, T. L., Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Chen, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2014). Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. International journal of social robotics, 6(2), 229-247.
45. Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use: An alternative approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(1), 24.
46. Vandemeulebroucke, T., de Casterlé, B. D., & Gastmans, C. (2018). How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging & mental health, 22(2), 149-167.
47. Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS quarterly, 695-704.
48. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
49. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328-376.
50. Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., Sakamoto, K., & Tanie, K. (2005, April). Psychological and social effects of one year robot assisted activity on elderly people at a health service facility for the aged. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (pp. 2785-2790). IEEE.
51. Walters, M. L. (2008). The design space for robot appearance and behaviour for social robot companions (Doctoral dissertation).
52. World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework (No. WHO/NMH/NPH/02.8). Geneva: World Health Organization.
53. Wu, L., & Chen, J. L. (2005). An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: an empirical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(6), 784-808.
54. Xu, Q., Ng, J., Tan, O., Huang, Z., Tay, B., & Park, T. (2015). Methodological issues in scenario-based evaluation of human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(2), 279-291.
55. Yang, H. D., & Yoo, Y. (2004). It's all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decision support systems, 38(1), 19-31.
56. Zsiga, K., Tóth, A., Pilissy, T., Péter, O., Dénes, Z., & Fazekas, G. (2018). Evaluation of a companion robot based on field tests with single older adults in their homes. Assistive Technology, 30(5), 259-266.