User:Abraham Lincoln 13/sandbox/Robotic Pets
 | This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Robotic pets are artificially intelligent machines that are made to resemble actual pets. While the first robotic pets produced in the late 1990s were not too advanced, they have since grown technologically. Many now use machine learning (algorithms that allow machines to adapt to experiences independent of humans), making them much more realistic[1]. Most consumers buy robotic pets with the aim of getting similar companionship that real pets offer, without some of the drawbacks that come with caring for live animals[1][2]. The pets on the market currently have a wide price range, from the low hundreds into the several thousands of dollars[3]. Multiple studies have been done to show that we treat robotic pets in a similar way as actual pets, despite their obvious differences[4][5][6]. However, there is some controversy regarding how ethical using robotic pets is, and whether or not they should be widely adopted in elderly care[3][7].
History
[edit]The first robotic pets to be put on the market were Hasbro’s Furby in 1998 and Sony’s AIBO in 1999[1]. Since then, robotic pets have grown increasingly advanced.
Some popular robotic pets today are:[1]
- Joy for All (by Hasbro) Companion Pets[2][3]
- Zoomer Interactive Kittens and Puppies
- PARO Robot Seals by Intelligent Systems Co.
- AIBO (upgraded) by Sony[1]
Common Uses
[edit]The primary consumer group is elderly people that live alone or in nursing homes, who often suffer from loneliness and social isolation[3][8]. For this group, robotic pets can be helpful because they often are unable to consistently walk, feed, or otherwise take care of an actual pet[2]. Robotic pets are also marketed towards dementia patients, who are people that suffer from loss of memory and thinking skills. These people often suffer extreme loneliness due to not remembering their loved ones, but having physical contact and constant reminders of a robotic pet can lessen that feeling[3]. For example, a study done in Texas and Kansas found that dementia residents who had group sessions with a PARO (brand of robotic pet) for three months showed decreased anxiety and less behavioral problems, when compared to a control group that experienced activities in a traditional nursing home, such as music and physical activity[9].
Affordability
[edit]When robotic pets were first introduced into the market, they were not very financially feasible for most people. Even now, there remains a large price gap between different types of robotic pets. For example, PAROs robotic pet seals cost $6,120, making them unaffordable to most individual consumers[3]. They are therefore bought more by nursing homes, hospitals, or other institutions[3]. On the other end of the price spectrum are Joy For All’s Companion Pets. These only cost about $120, which makes it more realistic for individual consumers, such as elderly adults who live alone[8].
Currently, there is very little insurance coverage available for robotic pet owners. Medicare only covers the costs of certain robotic pets (PARO) for use by therapists, not by any individuals[3]. However, Medicaid and some private insurers are exploring the idea of including robotic pets in their healthcare[3]. If this were to happen, it would significantly boost the sales of the pets[3].
Effectiveness
[edit]Since the effectiveness of a robotic pet depends heavily on how much consumers see it as a real animal, multiple studies have been done comparing robotic pets to other things, such as live animals and inanimate objects (toys). The studies often focus on whether the robot / animal / toy is seen to have the following characteristics:
| Characteristic | Definition | Example Question |
|---|---|---|
| Biological[4][5] / Physical Essence[6] | Whether or not something is alive[4][5][6] | Can it eat? |
| Mental State[4][5][6] | Whether or not something can have feelings[4][5][6] | Can it be happy? |
| Sociability[4][5][6] | Whether or not something is capable of being a companion[4][5][6] | Can you be friends with it? |
| Moral Standing[5][6] | Whether or not something is responsible for their actions[5][6] | Can you justify physically punishing it if it does something wrong? |
Robotic Pet vs Stuffed Animal
[edit]One study in 2004 compared how children interacted with Sony’s AIBO versus with a stuffed dog. The researchers did this by letting the children play with either the stuffed toy or the AIBO for three minutes, and then asking the children a series of questions to determine how they viewed each one[5]. The study found that, when the children were asked questions about the characteristics of either AIBO or the stuffed animal, they responded in similar ways[5]. This held true when they were asked questions concerning biological essence, mental states, sociability, and moral standing[5]. However, there were differences in how the children behaved with AIBO versus the stuffed animal. For example, in the questionnaire the children responded that both the AIBO and the stuffed dog could hear verbal commands[5]. But when the researchers observed how the children interacted with the AIBO or stuffed dog, they found that more children gave verbal commands to the AIBO[5].
Robotic Pet vs Live Animal
[edit]Another study in 2005 compared children's interactions with the AIBO and with a live dog. The researchers did this by letting the children play freely with either the AIBO or the real dog for five minutes, and then asking the children a series of questions to determine how they viewed each one[6]. The study found that more children preferred to play with the live dog over the AIBO, and more children affirmed that the live dog had a physical essence, a mental state, sociability, and moral standing[4][6]. However, the researchers found that the AIBO was given some dog-like attributes, even if not treated entirely like the dog[4][6]. For example, many of the children thought the AIBO could have feelings, such as happiness or sadness[6]. Some also thought that the AIBO could be their friend, and that it wasn't okay to kick the AIBO if it did something bad[6].
Both these studies concluded that robotic pets such as AIBO often aren't categorized as either alive or inanimate, but rather in a new category in between the other two[5][6]. For example, children in the first study treated the AIBO differently than they treated the stuffed toy, even though they stated that the two were very similar[5]. In contrast, the children in the second study stated that the live dog was different from the AIBO, but ended up treating the two similarly[6]. These findings show that we consciously identify robotic pets as inanimate objects, but we behave as if they are closer to real pets than they are to toys.
Controversy
[edit]While robotic pets have proven to be beneficial to many consumers, especially those who are elderly, there remains some controversy about certain ethical issues[3]. One study from 2016 attempted to discuss two main ethical considerations: elderly consumers may not be able to recognize that the robots aren't actual pets, and that the robot pets will come to replace human interaction[3][7]. Those who participated in the study came to the conclusion that for most consumers, neither issue is major concern[7]. They found that most robotic pet owners understood that the robot pet was animated, even if they formed a pet-like relationship with it[7]. Additionally, the study participants argued that the robotic pets would more likely be used in a way that facilitated more social interactions in a group setting, such as at a dog park[7]. However, these issues continue to cause debate because there is a minority of consumers, including many dementia patients, who may fail to recognize that the robot is animated.
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e "Video & Blog: Will Robot Pets Replace Real Dogs and Cats?". Dr. Ernie Ward. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
- ^ a b c Howard, By Jacqueline (2016-10-03). "Robot pets offer real comfort". CNN. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Span, Paula (2020-09-26). "In Isolating Times, Can Robo-Pets Provide Comfort?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Melson, Gail F.; Jr, Peter H. Kahn; Beck, Alan; Friedman, Batya (2009). "Robotic Pets in Human Lives: Implications for the Human–Animal Bond and for Human Relationships with Personified Technologies". Journal of Social Issues. 65 (3): 545–567. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01613.x. ISSN 1540-4560.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Kahn, Peter H.; Friedman, Batya; Perez-Granados, Deanne R.; Freier, Nathan G. (2004-04-24). "Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children". CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI EA '04. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1449–1452. doi:10.1145/985921.986087. ISBN 978-1-58113-703-3.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Melson, Gail F.; Kahn, Peter H.; Beck, Alan M.; Friedman, Batya; Roberts, Trace; Garrett, Erik (2005-04-02). "Robots as dogs?: Children's interactions with the robotic dog AIBO and a live australian shepherd". CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI EA '05. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1649–1652. doi:10.1145/1056808.1056988. ISBN 978-1-59593-002-6.
- ^ a b c d e Lazar, Amanda; Thompson, Hilaire J.; Piper, Anne Marie; Demiris, George (2016-06-04). "Rethinking the Design of Robotic Pets for Older Adults". Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. Brisbane QLD Australia: ACM. pp. 1034–1046. doi:10.1145/2901790.2901811. ISBN 978-1-4503-4031-1.
- ^ a b Nast, Condé (2021-05-21). "What Robots Can—and Can't—Do for the Old and Lonely". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
- ^ Petersen, Sandra; Houston, Susan; Qin, Huanying; Tague, Corey; Studley, Jill (2017). "The Utilization of Robotic Pets in Dementia Care". Journal of Alzheimer's Disease: JAD. 55 (2): 569–574. doi:10.3233/JAD-160703. ISSN 1875-8908. PMC 5181659. PMID 27716673.