Two studies examined the hypothesis that acceptance and control-based interventions for pain have specific self-regulatory costs and benefits. Both studies consisted of volunteers from a sample derived from the pool of psychology students at the University of Manitoba. Relative to control-based coping, acceptance was predicted to be associated with: 1) Normalization of time distortion; 2) Faster post-stimulus pain recovery 3) Preservation of self-regulatory energy required for acts of self-control; 4) Stronger pain coping self-efficacy beliefs, relative to two control-based coping strategies: suppression and distraction, and 5) improved pain tolerance. Study I (N=180) showed no group differences for pain tolerance, retrospective duration judgments or self-efficacy ratings, and weak evidence of differential pain recovery effects. As predicted, temporal speed ratings were slower for the suppression condition relative to the distraction condition. In Study II the pattern of condition effects for temporal speed was replicated though the statistical main effect only approached significance. In Study II (N=190), between-group differences were detected for pain tolerance, pain recovery, retrospective duration judgments and self-efficacy belief variables. As predicted the distraction group showed higher pain tolerance than the suppression group. Contrary to prediction, the difference between distraction and acceptance for pain tolerance was not significant. Contrary to predictions the greatest normalization of retrospective duration distortion occurred in the distraction condition. As predicted, post-intervention self-efficacy ratings were higher for acceptance than suppression but the difference between acceptance and distraction was not significant. Predicted pain recovery effects were also detected in Study II such that pain ratings for the suppression and distraction conditions were higher than for the acceptance condition at 60 and 120 seconds post-tolerance. Hypothesized between-group differences for self-regulatory-strength depletion were not confirmed. Possible reasons for lack of difference between acceptance and distraction on pain tolerance ratings and ego depletion measures, as well as possible future research directions were discussed.

Personal robots can help people live safer, more efficient and comfortable lives. However, such benefits cannot be achieved if people do not use, or accept, personal robots. The use of a technology is predominantly influenced by an individual's intention to use it, which is influenced by his or her attitudes toward it (Davis, 1989). Presently, the key factors that impact the use of personal robots are not fully understood. Two studies were conducted as first step assessments of the Smarr, Fisk, and Rogers (2013) theoretically-based framework of acceptance of personal robots. In study 1, 14 participants used a personal robot (a robot lawn mower) at their homes for about six weeks. Their acceptance and factors important for acceptance identified in the framework were measured using pre-use and post-use interviews and questionnaires, and weekly diaries. The framework was conceptually validated; participants mentioned 16 of the 20 factors in the Smarr et al. (2013) framework. However, the framework did not fully account for the breadth of factors discussed by participants, thereby suggesting variables may need to be added to or removed from the framework. In study 2, 280 participants reported their initial acceptance of a personal robot (a robot mower) with different levels of reliability and communication of feedback in an online survey. Level of robot reliability did significantly affect attitudinal and intentional acceptance. Follow up analyses indicated a trend that participants who received no information on reliability had numerically higher acceptance than participants who were informed that the robot had 70% reliability or 90% reliability. Neither communication of feedback nor its interaction with reliability affected acceptance. The Smarr et al. (2013) framework explained about 60% of the variance in intentional acceptance and 57% in attitudinal acceptance of a personal robot. Eight of the 15 relationships tested were supported via path analysis. Findings largely supported the Smarr et al. (2013) framework in explaining what impacts intentional and attitudinal acceptance of a personal robot. Results from these studies can inform the Smarr et al. (2013) framework of robot acceptance and other models of acceptance, and can guide designers in developing acceptable personal robots.

Thesis PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--Bowling Green State University, 2007. / Document formatted into pages; contains ix, 60 p. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--State University of New York at Binghamton, Dept. of Psychology, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Erlangen.

Thesis (M.A.P.S.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 2006. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 36).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität zu Breslau.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität zu Breslau.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Göttingen, 1911. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [3]-7).