Methodology

What this measurement is / is not

This block is designed to be copy-paste friendly for internal documentation and for third-party contextual reference.

---

Citation & reuse: Published white-paper text and figures identified as CC BY 4.0 may be reused in accordance with that license. Logos and marks are excluded where stated. Responsibility for use, interpretation, and any translations rests with the citing party. See Terms and the applicable issue record for details.

---

Core measure: Reluctance (self-reported psychological hesitation, unease, or internal friction; Japanese questionnaire term: 「抵抗（抵抗感）」).

Additional domain-specific measures: Permission / human-intervention requirement, Sensitivity Expectation, Reassurance, Retention Allowance, and Consent.

Terminology note: In the Japanese questionnaire, Reluctance-related item wording uses “resistance/reluctance” (抵抗・抵抗感). In English, Reluctance is used as the formal label to avoid the connotation of physical or organized resistance. Japanese explanatory text may use 「心理的なためらい／抵抗感」 as a plain-language description of the same construct.

A reference-oriented index linking question groups to commonly discussed governance and oversight discussion dimensions is provided in Evidence Mapping. The index is a descriptive crosswalk at the question-group level and does not reveal verbatim item wordings.

1. Scope of measurement

This research reports aggregated summaries of self-reported responses to defined home AI and robotics contexts within domestic environments in Japan.

The measurement framework is organized around three domains: Spatial Context, System Behavior, and Data Governance.

Measurements are conducted at the level of concrete, described contexts and conditions rather than relying solely on abstract attitudes or general opinions.

2. Core construct and domain-specific measures

Reluctance is a core construct within J-HAB. It is defined as self-reported psychological hesitation, unease, or internal friction in response to a described home AI context.

Reluctance is not the only response construct used in the framework. Depending on the measurement domain and survey condition, domain-specific self-report scales are also used.

3. Measurement domains

4. Survey design

Data are collected through online survey research in Japan. Unless otherwise stated in the applicable issue record, samples are collected using a non-probability online access panel.

Sampling approach, sample size, fieldwork period, target population, quota design, weighting decisions, and other material study-specific parameters are documented in the corresponding issue record.

Panel-provider information and material operational details are disclosed at the issue level to the extent they can appropriately be made public.

Material study-specific quality-control or exclusion procedures are documented at the issue level when applicable and available for public disclosure.

Question specifications and response scales are maintained as versioned specifications to support longitudinal comparability. Starting from 2025, each issue is assigned a specification identifier (Spec ID), which is documented on the corresponding issue record.

5. Measurement tool and documentation

Public documentation provides a summary of the measurement scope, constructs, response scales, and question-group structure necessary to interpret published results.

Verbatim question wording, full response-option wording, presentation order, questionnaire logic, and instructions may be maintained as version-controlled controlled documentation.

Where independent verification is required, controlled documentation may be provided under the published Data Access policy, subject to the applicable disclosure conditions.

6. Interpretation and limitations

Reported values represent aggregated summaries of observed response patterns within the sample collected under the documented study design.

Results should be interpreted as descriptive, non-normative evidence. They do not establish that a technology, behavior, or condition is socially acceptable, unacceptable, appropriate, or inappropriate.

Results are based on self-reported survey responses and do not constitute direct behavioral observation.

Results depend on questionnaire wording, response options, scenario assumptions, presentation conditions, and the survey context in which responses were collected.

Unless otherwise stated, non-probability online samples should not be interpreted as probability samples. Results may be affected by selection and coverage limitations, respondent composition, response bias, measurement error, and other forms of survey error.

Observed associations or response differences should not be interpreted as establishing causal relationships or as forecasts of future attitudes or behavior.

7. Change management and time scope

Measurement specifications and editorial rules are maintained as versioned specifications. When material changes are necessary, they are introduced as a new specification version and documented.

Data collected under a given specification are not retroactively altered by subsequent specification changes. Prior versions remain part of the publication record.

Publication revisions are separately identified using revision identifiers such as Rev.01, Rev.02, etc. A publication revision does not, by itself, imply a change to the underlying measurement specification.

Specification changes, publication corrections, and material methodological updates are documented through the applicable issue record and/or Errata & Corrections .

8. Measurement framework

Observations are organized using the J-HAB (Japan Home AI Boundary) measurement framework.

J-HAB provides a structured way to organize and describe context-specific variation in self-reported responses across: Spatial Context, System Behavior, and Data Governance.

Reluctance is a core measure within the framework, while domain-specific self-report scales are used where appropriate for permission, sensitivity expectations, reassurance, retention allowance, and consent.

J-HAB is a descriptive, non-normative organizing framework maintained under fixed, versioned definitions.

9. Standards and principles (self-declared)

Methodological disclosures are structured with reference to AAPOR Transparency Initiative (TI) disclosure elements.

Operational design may also draw on relevant concepts contained in ISO 20252:2019, while repository and publication-record practices are informed by the TRUST Principles (Transparency, Responsibility, User focus, Sustainability, Technology).

These references describe self-declared design and operating choices. They do not represent AAPOR TI certification, ISO certification, accreditation, regulatory approval, or third-party assurance.

If this status changes in the future, it will be explicitly disclosed.