1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems
  4. Volume 7, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems

Volume 7, 2024

Ethics of Social Robotics: Individual and Societal Concerns and Opportunities

Abstract

Focus on the ethics of a given technology tends to lag far behind its development. This lag has been particularly acute in the case of artificial intelligence, whose accelerated deployment in a wide range of domains has triggered unprecedented attention on the risks and consequences for society at large, leading to a myriad of ethics regulations, which are difficult to coordinate and integrate due to their late appearance. The very nature of social robots forces their deployment to occur at a much slower pace, providing an opportunity for a profound reflection on ethics, which is already happening in multidisciplinary teams. This article provides a personal view of the ethics landscape, centered on the particularities of social robotics, with the main issues being ordered along two axes (individual and societal) and grouped into eight categories (human dignity, human autonomy, robot transparency, emotional bonding, privacy and safety, justice, freedom, and responsibility). This structure stems from the experience of developing and teaching a university course on ethics in social robotics, whose pedagogical materials are freely available.

Keyword(s): AI ethics, human–robot interaction, philosophy of technology, robot ethics, social responsibility, social robotics
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-062023-082238
2024-07-10
2025-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/control/7/1/annurev-control-062023-082238.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-062023-082238&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Torras C. 2016.. Service robots for citizens of the future. . Eur. Rev. 24::17–30
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Pareto J, Román B, Torras C. 2021.. The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: a critical literature review. . Technol. Soc. 67::101726
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Simon HA. 1969.. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.
    Torras C. 2020.. Science-fiction: a mirror for the future of humankind. . IDEES 48:. https://revistaidees.cat/en/science-fiction-favors-engaging-debate-on-artificial-intelligence-and-ethics
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Heidegger M. 1954.. Die Frage nach der Technik [The question concerning technology. ]. In Vorträge und Aufsätze, pp. 13–44. Stuttgart, Ger.:: Günther Neske
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    Jonas H. 1979.. Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation [The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age]. Frankfurt, Ger.:: Insel
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Bilbeny N, ed. 2023.. Robótica, ética y política [Robotics, ethics and politics]. Barcelona, Spain:: Icaria
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Carbonell E. 2022.. El futur de la humanitat [The future of humankind]. Barcelona, Spain:: Ara Llibres
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Veruggio G, Solis J, Van der Loos M. 2011.. Roboethics: ethics applied to robotics. . IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 18:(1):21–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Sullins JP. 2015.. Applied professional ethics for the reluctant roboticist. . In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction: The Emerging Policy and Ethics of Human-Robot Interaction Workshop, pp. 1–8. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Wallach W, Allen C. 2008.. Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    IEEE Glob. Initiat. Ethics Auton. Intell. Syst. 2018.. Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-Being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE. Version 2. https://standards.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/import/documents/other/ead_v2.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Boden M, Bryson J, Caldwell D, Dautenhahn K, Edwards L, et al. 2017.. Principles of robotics: regulating robots in the real world. . Connect. Sci. 29::124–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Eur. Parliam. 2017.. Civil law rules on robotics. Resolut. P8_TA(2017)0051 , Eur. Parliam., Strasbourg, Fr.: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0051_EN.html
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    High-Level Expert Group Artific. Intell. 2019.. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Rep. , Eur. Comm., Brussels, Belg.: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60419
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E. 2019.. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. . Nat. Mach. Intell. 1::389–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Sabater A, de Manuel A. 2022.. The PIO model (principles, indicators and observables): a proposal for organizational self-assessment on the ethical use of data and artificial intelligence systems. Rep. , Obs. Ethics Artif. Intell. Catalonia, Univ. Girona, Girona, Spain:. https://www.udg.edu/ca/Portals/57/OContent_Docs/modelpio_ENG_v4.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, et al. 2018.. AI4People—an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. . Minds Mach. 28::689–707
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Fosch-Villaronga E, Lutz C, Tamò-Larrieux A. 2020.. Gathering expert opinions for social robots’ ethical, legal, and societal concerns: findings from four international workshops. . Int. J. Soc. Robot. 12::441–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Vandemeulebroucke T, de Casterlé BD, Gastmans C. 2018.. The use of care robots in aged care: a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. . Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 74::15–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    RoboLaw Proj. 2014.. Guidelines on regulating robotics. Deliver. D6.2 , RoboLaw Proj. http://www.robolaw.eu/RoboLaw_files/documents/robolaw_d6.2_guidelinesregulatingrobotics_20140922.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ. 2011.. Socially assistive robotics. . IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 18:(1):24–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Sharkey A, Sharkey N. 2012.. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. . Ethics Inf. Technol. 14::27–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Lichocki P, Kahn PH Jr., Billard A. 2011.. A survey of the robotics ethical landscape. . IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 18:(1):39–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Cowie R. 2015.. Ethical issues in affective computing. . In The Oxford Handbook of Affective Computing, ed. R Calvo, S D'Mello, J Gratch, A Kappas , pp. 334–48. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Sharkey A. 2014.. Robots and human dignity: a consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. . Ethics Inf. Technol. 16::63–75
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Sharkey N, Sharkey A. 2010.. The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal. . Interact. Stud. 11::161–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Wilks Y. 2010.. Introducing artificial companions. . In Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical and Design Issues, ed. Y Wilks , pp. 11–20. Amsterdam:: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Pearson Y, Borenstein J. 2014.. Creating “companions” for children: the ethics of designing esthetic features for robots. . AI Soc. 29::23–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Espingardeiro A. 2015.. Social assistive robots, reframing the human robotics interaction benchmark of social success. . Int. J. Soc. Behav. Educ. Econ. Bus. Ind. Eng. 9::377–82
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Gutiérrez A. 2015.. Nothing in excess; including technology. . Barcelona Metròpolis 96:, pp. 42–44. https://www.barcelona.cat/bcnmetropolis/2007-2017/en/entrevista/de-res-massa-tampoc-de-tecnologia
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Roberts R. 2001.. The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Castellano G, De Carolis B, D'Errico F, Macchiarulo N, Rossano V. 2021.. PeppeRecycle: improving children's attitude toward recycling by playing with a social robot. . Int. J. Soc. Robot. 13::97–111
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Borenstein J, Arkin R. 2016.. Robotic nudges: the ethics of engineering a more socially just human being. . Sci. Eng. Ethics 22::31–46
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 2008.. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT:: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Li J. 2013.. The nature of the bots: how people respond to robots, virtual agents and humans as multimodal stimuli. . In ICMI ’13: Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pp. 337–40. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Winfield AF, Booth S, Dennis L, Egawa T, Hastie H, et al. 2021.. IEEE P7001: a proposed standard on transparency. . Front. Robot. AI 8::665729
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Sharkey A, Sharkey N. 2021.. We need to talk about deception in social robotics!. Ethics Inform. Technol. 23::309–16
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Van Maris A, Zook N, Caleb-Solly P, Studley M, Winfield A, Dogramadzi S. 2018.. Ethical considerations of (contextually) affective robot behaviour. . In Hybrid Worlds: Societal and Ethical Challenges, ed. S Bringsjord, MO Tokhi, MIA Ferreira, NS Govindarajulu , pp. 13–19. High Wycombe, UK:: CLAWAR Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Matthias A. 2015.. Robot lies in health care: When is deception morally permissible?. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 25::169–192
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Guizzo E. 2015.. The little robot that could…maybe. . IEEE Spectr. 53:(1):58–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Riek LD, Howard D. 2014.. A code of ethics for the human-robot interaction profession. Paper presented at We Robot, Coral Gables, FL:, Apr. 4–5
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Van der Loos HM. 2007.. Ethics by design: a conceptual approach to personal and service robot systems. Paper presented at the Workshop on Roboethics , IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Rome:, Apr. 10–14
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Kaouri C, Walters ML, Koay KL, Werry I. 2005.. What is a robot companion—friend, assistant or butler?. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1192–97. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Levy D. 2007.. Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships. New York:: Harper Perenn.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Cheok AD, Levy D, Karunanayaka K, Morisawa Y. 2017.. Love and sex with robots. . In Handbook of Digital Games and Entertainment Technologies, ed. R Nakatsu, M Rauterberg, P Ciancarini , pp. 833–58. Singapore:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Bryson JJ. 2010.. Robots should be slaves. . In Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical and Design Issues, ed. Y Wilks , pp. 63–74. Amsterdam:: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Sullins JP. 2012.. Robots, love, and sex: the ethics of building a love machine. . IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 3::398–409
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    de Graaf MM. 2016.. An ethical evaluation of human–robot relationships. . Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8::589–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Vallverdú J, Casacuberta D. 2014.. Ethical and technical aspects of emotions to create empathy in medical machines. . In Machine Medical Ethics, ed. SP van Rysewyk, M Pontier , pp. 341–62. Cham, Switz.:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Turkle S. 2007.. Authenticity in the age of digital companions. . Interact. Stud. 8::501–17
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Riek LD, Rabinowitch TC, Chakrabarti B, Robinson P. 2009.. Empathizing with robots: fellow feeling along the anthropomorphic spectrum. . In 2009 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2009.5349423
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Reig S, Carter EJ, Tan XZ, Steinfeld A, Forlizzi J. 2021.. Perceptions of agent loyalty with ancillary users. . Int. J. Soc. Robot. 13::2039–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Calo R. 2015.. Robotics and the lessons of cyberlaw. . Calif. Law Rev. 103::513–63
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Veruggio G, Operto F. 2008.. Roboethics: social and ethical implications of robotics. . In Springer Handbook of Robotics, ed. B Siciliano, O Khatib , pp. 1499–524. Berlin:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Verbeek P. 2008.. Morality in design: design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. . In Philosophy and Design, ed. PE Vermaas, P Kroes, A Light, SA Moore , pp. 91–103. Cham, Switz.:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Bonnemains V, Saurel C, Tessier C. 2018.. Embedded ethics: some technical and ethical challenges. . Ethics Inf. Technol. 20::41–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Wallach W. 2010.. Robot Morals and Human Ethics: the seminar. . Teach. Ethics 11::87–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Leroux C, Labruto R. 2012.. Ethical, legal, and societal issues in robotics. Deliver. D3.2.1, euRobot . Eur. Robot. Coord. Action
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    van Wynsberghe A, Li S. 2019.. A paradigm shift for robot ethics: from HRI to human–robot–system interaction (HRSI). . Medicolegal Bioeth. 9::11–21
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Barrett M, Oborn E, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J. 2012.. Reconfiguring boundary relations: robotic innovations in pharmacy work. . Organ. Sci. 23::1448–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Mutlu B, Forlizzi J. 2008.. Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. . In HRI ’08: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, pp. 287–94. New York:: ACM
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Nagenborg M, Capurro R, Weber J, Pingel C. 2008.. Ethical regulations on robotics in Europe. . AI Soc. 22::349–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Buolamwini J, Gebru T. 2018.. Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. . In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, ed. SA Friedler, C Wilson , pp. 77–91. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 81. N.p.:: PMLR
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Howard A, Borenstein J. 2018.. The ugly truth about ourselves and our robot creations: the problem of bias and social inequity. . Sci. Eng. Ethics 24::1521–36
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Peltu M, Wilks Y. 2010.. Summary and discussion of the issues. . In Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical and Design Issues, ed. Y Wilks , pp. 259–86. Amsterdam:: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Lowe W. 2010.. Identifying your accompanist. . In Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical and Design Issues, ed. Y Wilks , pp. 95–100. Amsterdam:: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Berlin I. 1969.. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Coeckelbergh M. 2022.. The Political Philosophy of AI: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK:: Polity
     [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.
    Gunkel DJ. 2020.. Mind the gap: responsible robotics and the problem of responsibility. . Ethics Inf. Technol. 22::307–20
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Nyholm S. 2017.. Attributing agency to automated systems: reflections on human–robot collaborations and responsibility-loci. . Sci. Eng. Ethics 24::1–19
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Darling K. 2016.. Extending legal protection to social robots: the effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. . In RobotLaw, ed. R Calo, AM Froomkin, I Kerr , pp. 213–32. Cheltenham, UK:: Edward Elgar
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Rosén J, Lindblom J, Billing E, Lamb M. 2021.. Ethical challenges in the human-robot interaction field. Paper presented at the TRAITS Workshop , ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, virtual, March 9–11
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Laumond JP, Danblon E, Pieters C, eds. 2019.. Wording Robotics: Discourses and Representations on Robotics. Cham, Switz.:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Punchoojit L, Hongwarittorrn N. 2015.. Research ethics in human-computer interaction: a review of ethical concerns in the past five years. . In 2015 2nd National Foundation for Science and Technology Development Conference on Information and Computer Science, pp. 180–85. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Riek LD. 2012.. Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. . J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 1::119–36
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Nourbakhsh I. 2010.. The rhetorics of robotics. Unpubl. Manuscr. https://sites.google.com/site/ethicsandrobotics/ethics-and-robotics-a-teaching-guide/living-archive/reading/nourbakhsh
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Torras C. 2018.. The Vestigial Heart: A Novel of the Robot Age. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Torras C. 2010.. Robbie, the pioneer robot nanny: Science fiction helps develop ethical social opinion. . Interact. Stud. 11::269–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Torras C. 2023.. La ciencia ficción como estímulo del debate ético en robótica [Science fiction as a stimulus for ethics debate in robotics]. . In Robótica, ética y política [Robotics, ethics and politics], ed. N Bilbeny , pp. 139–67. Barcelona, Spain:: Icaria
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Burton E, Goldsmith J, Mattei N. 2018.. How to teach computer ethics through science fiction. . Commun. ACM 61:(8):54–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Torras C, Ludescher LG. 2023.. Writing science fiction as an inspiration for AI research and ethics dissemination. . In Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, ed. M Chetouani, V Dignum, P Lukowicz, C Sierra , pp. 322–44. Cham, Switz.:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Torras C. 2019.. Robotics and artificial intelligence meet the humanities: some initiatives for ethics education and dissemination. . In Humanities and Higher Education: Synergies between Science, Technology and Humanities, pp. 267–73. Barcelona, Spain:: Glob. Univ. Netw. Innov.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Grosz BJ, Grant DG, Vredenburgh K, Behrends J, Hu L, et al. 2019.. Embedded EthiCS: integrating ethics across CS education. . Commun. ACM 62:(8):54–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    ACM (Assoc. Comput Mach.), IEEE-CS (Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. Comput Soc.), AAAI (Assoc. Adv. Artif. Intell.). 2023.. CS2023: ACM/IEEE-CS/AAAI computer science curricula. https://csed.acm.org
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    ACM (Assoc. Comput Mach.), IEEE-CS (Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. Comput Soc.), AAAI (Assoc. Adv. Artif. Intell.). 2023.. Society, Ethics and Professionalism (SEP). Knowl. Area Doc., Version Beta. https://csed.acm.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/SEP-Version-Beta.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Moon AJ. 2023.. Introduction to Ethics of Autonomous Intelligent Systems (ECSE 557). Course, Dep. Electr. Comput. Eng., McGill Univ., Montreal, Can. https://www.ajungmoon.com/teaching/ecse557-ethics-of-ais
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Coeckelbergh M. 2009.. Personal robots, appearance, and human good: a methodological reflection on roboethics. . Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1::217–21
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Coeckelbergh M. 2022.. Three responses to anthropomorphism in social robotics: towards a critical, relational, and hermeneutic approach. . Int. J. Soc. Robot. 14::2049–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Sirkin D, Ju W. 2014.. Using embodied design improvisation as a design research tool. . In International Conference on Human Behavior in Design, pp. 14–17. Glasgow, Scotl.:: Des. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Sabanovic S, Reeder S, Kechavarzi B. 2014.. Designing robots in the wild: in situ prototype evaluation for a break management robot. . J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 3::70–88
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Dumouchel P, Damiano L. 2017.. Living with Robots. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    Rajaonah B, Zio E. 2022.. Social robotics and synthetic ethics: a methodological proposal for research. . Int. J. Soc. Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00874-1
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Broadbent E. 2017.. Interactions with robots: the truths we reveal about ourselves. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68::627–52
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Pérez-Osorio J, De Tommaso D, Baykara E, Wykowska A. 2018.. Joint action with Icub: a successful adaptation of a paradigm of cognitive neuroscience in HRI. . In 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 152–57. Piscataway, NJ:: IEEE
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Henschel A, Laban G, Cross ES. 2021.. What makes a robot social? A review of social robots from science fiction to a home or hospital near you. . Curr. Robot. Rep. 2::9–19
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Vandemeulebroucke T, Casterle BD, Gastmans C. 2020.. Ethics of socially assistive robots in aged-care settings: a socio-historical contextualisation. . J. Med. Ethics 46::128–36
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Verbeek PP. 2015.. Beyond interaction: a short introduction to mediation theory. . Interactions 22:(3):26–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Toboso M, Morte R, Monasterio A, Ausín T, Aparicio M, López D. 2020.. Robotics as an instrument for social mediation. . In Inclusive Robotics for a Better Society: Selected Papers from INBOTS Conference 2018, pp. 51–58. Cham, Switz.:: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Nussbaum MC. 2011.. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-062023-082238
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error