A global survey shows robot anxiety drops when people encounter robots in real life
Updated
March 13, 2026 2:25 PM

Ameca the humanoid robot, featuring a grey rubber face. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
People often assume robots make people uneasy everywhere. But a new global study suggests something more nuanced. Robot anxiety tends to be highest in places where people rarely see robots in real life. Where robots are more visible, attitudes are often far more positive. That insight comes from a global study by Hexagon AB, which surveyed 18,000 participants across nine major markets. The research explored how adults and children think about robots and how those views change depending on everyday exposure.
In the United Kingdom, anxiety about robots is the highest among the countries studied. Around 52% of adults say they feel worried that something might go wrong when they think about interacting with or working alongside robots. South Korea sits at the other end of the spectrum, with only 29% reporting similar concerns. One factor appears to explain much of the gap: familiarity.
British adults are among the least likely to have encountered robots in real life. Only about 30% say they have seen or used one. In contrast, countries where robots are more visible tend to report greater comfort. China offers the clearest example. Around 75% of adults there say they have seen or interacted with robots. At the same time, 81% say they feel excited about the technology’s future potential.
The study suggests that attitudes toward robots are not fixed. Instead, they shift depending on where people encounter them and what tasks they perform. When robots are seen solving clear, practical problems, confidence tends to rise.
Across the surveyed countries, adults report the highest comfort levels with robots working in factories and warehouses. Around 63% say they are comfortable with robots in those environments. These are settings where tasks are clearly defined and safety standards are well understood. Acceptance drops in more personal spaces. Only 46% say they feel comfortable with robots in the home, while comfort falls further to 39% when robots are imagined in classrooms.
In other words, context matters. People appear more willing to accept robots when they take on physically demanding or dangerous work. Half of the respondents say improved safety is one of the main advantages of robotics in those environments. A similar share point to productivity gains as another benefit. Another finding challenges a common assumption about public fears. Job loss is often described as the biggest concern surrounding robotics. But the study suggests security risk worries people more.
Around 51% of adults say their biggest concern about robots at work is the possibility that the machines could be hacked or misused. That fear outweighs worries about physical malfunction or injury, which stand at 41%. Concerns about being replaced at work appear at the same level.
For many respondents, the issue is not simply whether robots can perform tasks. It is whether the systems controlling them are secure. According to researchers involved in the study, these concerns reflect how people evaluate emerging technologies. Instead of having a single opinion about robotics, people tend to judge each situation individually.
A robot helping assemble products in a factory may feel acceptable. The same technology operating in more sensitive environments can raise different questions. Dr. Jim Everett, an associate professor in moral psychology, says trust in artificial intelligence and robotics is often misunderstood. People are not simply asking whether they trust the technology, he notes. They are thinking about specific tools performing specific roles.
A robot assisting in a classroom or helping in healthcare carries different expectations than an AI system used in defense or surveillance. Even though these technologies are often grouped together in public debates, people evaluate them differently depending on their purpose.
Finally, the study also highlights another important factor shaping public attitudes: experience. When people actually encounter robots, fear often declines. Michael Szollosy, a robotics researcher involved in the project, says reactions tend to change quickly when individuals meet a robot for the first time.
The idea of an autonomous machine can feel intimidating in theory. But when people see a small service robot or an industrial machine performing a straightforward task, the reaction is often much calmer. Exposure can shift perceptions from abstract fears to practical understanding.
That shift matters because robotics is moving steadily into everyday environments. From manufacturing and logistics to healthcare and public services, machines capable of autonomous or semi-autonomous work are becoming more common.
As that happens, the study suggests public confidence may depend less on technical breakthroughs and more on visibility and transparency. Burkhard Boeckem, chief technology officer at Hexagon AB, argues that trust grows when people understand what robots are designed to do and where their limits lie.
Anxiety tends to increase when systems feel invisible or poorly understood. Clear boundaries and clear explanations can have the opposite effect. When people see robots working safely alongside humans, performing well-defined tasks and operating within clear rules, the technology becomes easier to accept.
In that sense, the future of robotics may depend as much on public familiarity as on engineering. The machines themselves are advancing quickly. But the relationship between humans and robots is still being negotiated. For now, the study offers a simple insight: the more people encounter robots in everyday life, the less mysterious they become. And once the mystery fades, the conversation often changes from fear to curiosity.
Keep Reading
A look at how motivation, not metrics, is becoming the real frontier in fitness tech
Updated
February 7, 2026 2:18 PM

A group of people running together. PHOTO: FREEPIK
Most running apps focus on measurement. Distance, pace, heart rate, badges. They record activity well, but struggle to help users maintain consistency over time. As a result, many people track diligently at first, then gradually disengage.
That drop-off has pushed developers to rethink what fitness technology is actually for. Instead of just documenting activity, some platforms are now trying to influence behaviour itself. Paceful, an AI-powered running platform developed by SportsTech startup xCREW, is part of that shift — not by adding more metrics, but by focusing on how people stay consistent. The platform is built on a simple behavioural insight: most people don’t stop exercising because they don’t care about health. They stop because routines are fragile. Miss a few days and the habit collapses. Technology that focuses only on performance metrics doesn’t solve that. Systems that reinforce consistency, belonging and feedback loops might.
Instead of treating running as a solo, data-driven task, Paceful is built around two ideas: behavioural incentives and social alignment. The system turns real-world running activity into tangible rewards and it uses AI to connect runners to people, clubs and challenges that fit how and where they actually run.
At the technical level, Paceful connects with existing fitness ecosystems. Users can import workout data from platforms like Apple Health and Strava rather than starting from scratch. Once inside the system, AI models analyse pace, frequency, location and participation patterns. That data is used to recommend running partners, clubs and group challenges that match each runner’s habits and context.
What makes this approach different is not the tracking itself, but what the platform does with the data it collects. Running distance and consistency become inputs for a reward system that offers physical-world incentives, such as gear, race entries or gift cards. The idea is to link effort to something concrete, rather than abstract. The company also built the system around community logic rather than individual competition. Even solo runners are placed into challenge formats designed to simulate the motivation of a group. In practice, that means users feel part of a shared structure even when running alone.
During a six-month beta phase in the US, xCREW tested Paceful with more than 4,000 running clubs and around 50,000 runners. According to the company, users increased their running frequency significantly and weekly retention remained unusually high for a fitness platform. One beta tester summed it up this way: “Strava just logs records, but Paceful rewards you for every run, which is a completely different motivation”.
The company has raised seed funding and plans to expand the platform beyond running, walking, trekking, cycling and swimming. Instead of asking how accurately technology can measure the body, platforms like Paceful are asking a different question: how technology might influence everyday behaviour. Not by adding more data, but by shaping the conditions around effort, feedback and social connection.
As AI becomes more common in consumer products, its real impact may depend less on how advanced the models are and more on what they are applied to. In this case, the focus isn’t speed or performance — it’s consistency. And whether systems like this can meaningfully support it over time.