Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38650697›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sociology2024

Robotic misinformation in dementia care: emotions as sense-making resources in residents' encounters with robot animals.

Marcus Persson, Elin Thunman, Clara Iversen, David Redmalm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marcus PerssonInstitution of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Department of Education and Sociology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Elin ThunmanDepartment of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Clara IversenDepartment of Social Work, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
David RedmalmDivision of Sociology, School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot animals, designed to mimic living beings, pose ethical challenges in the context of caring for vulnerable patients, specifically concerning deception. This paper explores how emotions become a resource for dealing with the misinformative nature of robot animals in dementia care homes. Based on observations of encounters between residents, care workers, and robot animals, the study shows how persons with dementia approach the ambiguous robots as either living beings, material artifacts, or something in-between. Grounded in interactionist theory, the research demonstrates that emotions serve as tools in the sense-making process, occurring through interactions with the material object and in collaboration with care workers. The appreciation of social robots does not solely hinge on them being perceived as real or fake animals; persons with dementia may find amusement in "fake" animals and express fear of "real" ones. This observation leads us to argue that there is a gap between guidelines addressing misinformation and robots and the specific context in which the technology is in use. In situations where small talk and play are essential activities, care workers often prioritize responsiveness to residents rather than making sure that the robot's nature is transparent. In these situations, residents' emotional expressions serve not only as crucial resources for their own sense-making but also as valuable indicators for care workers to comprehend how to navigate care situations.

Indexed as

animacy judgmentcare workersdementia careemotionsinteractionist sociomaterialismmisinformative robotsresidentssense-making

Identifiers

PMID38650697
PMCPMC11034426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.