The robot anxiety gap: Why familiarity will define the future of robotics 

The robotics industry is at an inflection point. Adoption is primed to surge, investment is accelerating, and the technology is maturing at breakneck speed. Yet amid all this momentum, industry conversation remains fixed on technology and adoption.

Public conversation, however, is moving in a very different direction. As robotics and physical AI rapidly evolve, one variable more than any other is shaping how the future unfolds – people. Not industry leaders, influencers, or future gazers. Everyday people. And when you listen to them, the discussion returns again and again to the same question: should we be worried?

For any organisation with a stake in where robotics is heading, Hexagon’s Robot Generation study, which surveyed 18,000 adults and children across nine countries, shows that worry isn’t the real starting point. The factor shaping everything from public sentiment to national automation strategies is far simpler – familiarity.

A tale of two perceptions

The numbers are striking. Anxiety around robots is highly context dependent, rising or falling based on how familiar people are with real world examples. In China, 75% of adults have seen or used a robot in real life. In the UK, just 30% can say the same. And if you dig deeper, the research clearly links higher adoption with greater comfort, and lower adoption with greater scepticism.

Across the study, China emerged as the most positive nation about robots. High visibility has created a powerful sentiment loop. 81% of Chinese adults feel excited when thinking about robots, and 76% feel comfortable interacting with them in industrial environments. In South Korea, which has the highest robotic density in the world, only 29% of adults express worry about the technology.

By contrast, in the UK, low visibility translates into low levels of excitement and high levels of worry. The UK ranks highest in robot anxiety, with 52% of adults saying they feel worried when they think about interacting with or working alongside robots. Just 53% of adults say they would be comfortable interacting with robots in factories and warehouses – the lowest in the study. In the US, a similar pattern emerges. Only 35% of Americans say they’ve seen or used robots, the second lowest level after the UK, and this limited visibility is reflected in elevated concern: 45% of US adults report feeling worried when they think about robots, again second only to the UK.

What begins to emerge is not just a difference in sentiment, but a divergence in trajectory. In parts of Asia, familiarity is reinforcing acceptance and accelerating adoption. In the UK, US and much of Europe, attitudes are still shaped more by uncertainty than experience – slowing that momentum.

If this gap persists, it has broader implications. Robotics is becoming a defining component of industrial competitiveness. Countries further along the adoption curve are building not only technical capability, but social acceptance, too. Those that lag may find themselves needing to catch up on both fronts at once.

This is why it would be too simplistic to read these differences as purely cultural or political. What is often described as a public anxiety problem is, more precisely, a visibility problem.

The concerns people actually have

There is a persistent assumption that public resistance to robotics is driven by fear of job displacement. The data does not support this. When asked to identify their primary concern, 51% of respondents cited the risk of robots being hacked. Workforce replacement came in much lower at 41%.

People are not reacting to an imagined future. Nor are they rejecting robots. They are seeking clarity about their role. They are asking practical questions about security, reliability, and accountability – factors that are shaping national attitudes in ways that directly influence how industries deploy automation.

Adoption itself has a role to play in increasing cultural familiarity, but public sentiment is no longer a soft factor. It is a strategic one and industry must pay attention.

Where trust already exists

63% of adults say they are comfortable with robots operating in factories and warehouses. Acceptance, it appears, follows clarity. When a robot operates within a defined role, a controlled environment, and with a transparent purpose, public confidence follows.

These settings offer clear boundaries, defined roles, and an obvious value proposition, whether in safety, efficiency, or precision. The resistance is not to the technology itself but to ambiguity. What is the system doing, under whose authority, and what are the consequences of failure?

It’s no coincidence, then, that comfort drops in hospitals and classrooms. The further robots move from controlled industrial environments, the more clarity of purpose becomes the deciding factor.

Boundaries and trust

South Korea illustrates this well. It has one of the highest robot densities in the world, yet fewer than a third of adults express concern about robots. At the same time, expectations around their role remain well defined. Few see them as peers or decision-makers. Their purpose is understood, and that clarity appears to support confidence.

A similar pattern can be seen in China. Optimism is high, but it is grounded in practical experience. People are responding to robots performing specific, well-defined tasks, not to the idea of them replacing human judgement.

For those of us developing and deploying robotics, this is not a limitation. It is a design principle. Clear roles, visible controls, and well-defined responsibilities are what make adoption possible.

The real challenge

If robotics is going to reshape the world, we need to bring the world with us. Trust, not technology, is the critical variable.

Strong voices and opinions – whether they are futurists, technologists, or fear mongers – collide to drown out the voices and opinions of normal people, many of whom are more familiar with sci-fi depictions of robotics than the modern industrial reality.

We need to approach innovation with a degree of curiosity about how people experience robotics. Where do they feel comfortable? Where do they hesitate? What helps them understand a system, and what leaves them uncertain?

These questions are easy to deprioritise. They shouldn’t be.

We are not only developing capability. We are shaping how robotics is encountered in the real world. That means designing systems that people can make sense of, that behave in predictable ways, and that fit naturally into the environments in which they are used.

The anxiety gap is real, and it is consequential. But it closes through direct encounter – through robots that are visible, well-governed, and clearly purposeful. 

Organisations that take this seriously will do more than advance robotics. They will help ensure it finds its place in the world.