4.6 Article

What Drives Acceptance of Occupational Exoskeletons? Focus Group Insights from Workers in Food Retail and Corporate Logistics

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION
Volume 39, Issue 20, Pages 4080-4089

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2108969

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used guided focus groups to explore workers' perspectives and intentions towards adopting occupational exoskeleton technology. The results revealed that performance-related and effort-related factors, consistent with existing technology acceptance models, were highly recognized by the workers. Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of factors such as wellbeing, fairness, and the altered physical appearance of wearers in the social context of work.
The potential of occupational exoskeletons can only be realized if workers are willing to wear them on their bodies. As classical technology acceptance theories originate in research into information technology, they do not sufficiently cover the peculiarities of exoskeletons, and thus greater focus is needed on factors that specifically shape intentions to use them. Involving three companies from food retail and logistics, we conducted guided focus groups with 18 workers who perform material handling tasks in their daily work. Participants discussed the envisioned benefits, risks, and conditions related to the adoption of exoskeletons. Consistent with established technology acceptance models, performance-related and effort-related factors were found to be highly recognized. Participants also highlighted factors such as wellbeing, fairness, and the altered physical appearance of wearers, which was considered important in social contexts at work. Complementing established factors with new exoskeleton-specific determinants, our results are a valuable starting point for further exoskeleton user studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available