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
HyveGeo’s approach to restoring degraded land stands out at the FoodTech Challenge
Updated
February 7, 2026 2:18 PM

Clusters of sandstone buttes in Monument Valley, Colorado Plateau. PHOTO: UNSPLASH
HyveGeo, a climate-focused startup, has been named one of the global winners of the FoodTech Challenge, an international competition designed to surface practical technologies that strengthen food systems in arid and climate-stressed regions.
The FoodTech Challenge (FTC) is based in the UAE and brings together governments, foundations and agri-food institutions to identify early-stage solutions that address food production, land degradation and resource efficiency. Each year, hundreds of startups apply from around the world. In 2026, more than 1,200 teams from 113 countries submitted entries. Only four were selected.
HyveGeo stood out for its approach to one of agriculture’s hardest problems: how to make desert soil usable again. Founded in 2023 by a group of scientists and researchers, the Abu Dhabi-based company focuses on regenerating degraded land using a process built around biochar, a carbon-rich material made from agricultural waste, enhanced with microalgae. The aim is to accelerate soil recovery in environments where water is limited and land has been heavily stressed.
What caught the judges’ attention was not just the technology itself, but the way it links several challenges at once. The system turns waste into a usable soil input, reduces the time it takes for land to become productive and locks carbon into the ground instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. In short, it addresses land degradation, food production and climate pressure through a single framework.
As a winner of the FoodTech Challenge, HyveGeo will share a US$2 million prize with the other selected startups. Beyond funding, the company will also receive support from the UAE’s innovation ecosystem, including research backing, pilot projects, market access and incubation services to help move from testing into wider deployment.
The team’s plans focus on scaling within the UAE first. HyveGeo aims to work across Abu Dhabi’s network of farms and gradually expand into other arid and climate-stressed regions. Its longer-term target is to restore thousands of hectares of degraded land and contribute to carbon removal through soil-based methods.
Placed in a broader context, HyveGeo’s win reflects a shift in how food and climate technologies are being evaluated. Instead of chasing dramatic breakthroughs, competitions like the FTC are increasingly backing systems that connect waste, land, water and carbon into something usable on the ground. Not futuristic agriculture, but practical repair work for environments that can no longer rely on old farming assumptions. If that direction continues, the next wave of food innovation may be less about spectacle and more about quiet, scalable fixes for places where growing food has become hardest.