Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 135 references

Critical Insights about Robots for Mental Wellbeing

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Social robots can support mental wellbeing as evidence-based coaching tools rather than therapist replacements, and six insights from field studies guide their design.

desk verdict A clear, honest synthesis of the authors' own HRI wellbeing work: the six insights are sensible and the paper is self-aware about its limits, but the 'grounded in evidence' framing outruns the small, self-referential sample base. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13739 v1 pith:QYW3IKKG submitted 2025-06-16 cs.RO cs.HC

Guy Laban , Micol Spitale , Minja Axelsson , Nida Itrat Abbasi , Hatice Gunes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords human-robotinteractionsociallyassistiverobotsmentalwellbeingrobotethicsvirtuallong-termmeasurementadaptationandpersonalization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that social robots can genuinely support mental wellbeing, but only when they are designed as supportive tools rather than replacements for human therapists. Drawing on a body of empirical studies and deployments, mostly from the authors' own research group, it distils six transferable insights: there is no single objective ground truth for wellbeing; a robot does not need to be a companion to help; virtual and video-mediated interaction can work as well as physical presence; clinicians and wellbeing professionals should be co-designers; one-off interactions are useful but sustained engagement matters; and personalisation is optional because people often read social intent into even non-adaptive robots. The stated goal is to steer future research and practical deployment toward evidence-based, ethically guarded uses of robots in mental health and wellbeing contexts.

What carries the argument

The paper's organising device is a set of six insights, each presented as a background challenge followed by a transferable design lesson. The mechanism carrying the argument is cumulative, convergent evidence from the authors' repeated studies—long-term self-disclosure sessions, robotic positive-psychology coaching at work, group mindfulness in a cafe, child wellbeing assessment, and an emotion-regulation intervention—alongside selective external comparisons of companion versus coach roles and virtual versus physical delivery. A supporting psychological mechanism is mentalization, the tendency to attribute intention and meaning to a robot, which allows standardised, low-adaptivity robots to still be experienced as responsive and supportive.

What would settle it

A preregistered, multi-site randomised controlled trial in a clinical or help-seeking population showing that a non-adaptive coach robot produces no wellbeing improvement while an adaptive companion robot does, or a matched virtual-versus-physical comparison in which users confide significantly less to the virtual robot over repeated sessions, would directly contradict the paper's main insights.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated directly in the abstract, is that 'rather than positioning robots as replacements for human therapists, we argue that they are best understood as supportive tools that must be designed with care, grounded in evidence, and shaped by ethical and psychological considerations.' The paper's supporting observation is that wellbeing is multifaceted and subjective: no single questionnaire, self-report, or behavioural signal can serve as a unified ground truth, so evaluation and design must work with gold standards and multiple perspectives. From there the authors generalise across their own longitudinal and in-the-wild studies to argue that coach-like roles in workplaces, schools, and public spaces can be effective, that mediated interactions can preserve perceived social presence, and that even simple, non-adaptive robots can produce positive emotional outcomes through users' mentalization and meaning-making.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the authors' own studies, mostly small, non-clinical, and produced by one research group, are representative enough to support generalisable insights about robot roles, virtual delivery, and adaptivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wellbeing robots can be deployed as coaches, trainers, or facilitators in shared spaces, not only as personal companions, widening feasible deployment contexts.
  • Video-mediated robot interactions can preserve engagement and perceived social presence, making support accessible to geographically isolated, mobility-limited, or home-bound populations.
  • Design processes should include clinicians, psychologists, and wellbeing coaches alongside end users, because professional judgment can veto superficially appealing features such as free verbal adaptation.
  • One-off sessions are appropriate for assessment, early design iteration, and circumscribed situational support, while sustained change and therapeutic alliance require longitudinal deployments.
  • Researchers should treat adaptation as a cost-benefit decision rather than a default requirement, since standardised interactions can be effective and easier to evaluate, and users may perceive understanding even without personalisation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the paper is explicitly not a systematic review and the insights come from one group's studies, the insights are best read as transferable hypotheses; a systematic review with preregistered inclusion criteria would test how broadly they hold.
  • Editorial inference: if mentalization makes low-adaptivity robots effective, then cheap, non-personalised robots could be scaled across public and community settings; the same mechanism, however, makes dependency more likely, so 'designing for exit' should become a standard requirement rather than an afterthought.
  • Editorial inference: the virtual-modality results suggest a resource-leveraging model in which one physical robot plus a telehealth-style video pipeline reaches many users; a testable extension is comparing adherence and clinical outcomes between online and in-person robot coaching over several months.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's fairness observation about a robot assessment pipeline misclassifying girls' stories more often than boys' implies that any move toward clinical use of robot-led wellbeing assessment should require stratified validation across gender, age, and cultural groups before deployment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that social robots for mental wellbeing should be understood as supportive tools rather than replacements for human therapists, and it organizes the argument around six 'insights' drawn from the authors' collective research and selected literature: (1) there is no single ground-truth measure of wellbeing; (2) robots need not act as companions to be effective; (3) virtual/mediated interaction is a viable and promising mode; (4) clinicians should be involved in design; (5) one-off interactions are of limited value compared with longitudinal engagement; and (6) adaptation and personalization are not always necessary. The paper also discusses therapeutic alliance, validation requirements, dependency risks, privacy, and fairness, and it concludes with recommendations for collaborative, evidence-based, ethically grounded deployment.

Significance. If the six insights are accepted as transferable design lessons, they provide a useful counterweight to techno-optimistic accounts of robotic mental-health support. The paper's central reframing—away from replacement and toward complementing human practitioners—is timely and well aligned with a growing consensus in HRI and mental-health ethics. The authors are also to be credited for explicitly discussing dependency risks, the need for 'designing for exit,' and a concrete fairness concern (the VLM-based assessment bias reported in [128]). However, the empirical basis for the insights is narrow: most supporting studies are small, same-group, non-clinical, and often without control conditions. The paper is honest about this in the Discussion, but the abstract's 'grounded in evidence' framing is stronger than the current evidence permits. Because the insights are phrased as general conclusions rather than context-bound observations, the strength of the evidentiary base is load-bearing for the paper's contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 (Insights 1–6) and Discussion] The six insights are presented as generalizable design lessons, but the supporting empirical base is dominated by the authors' own studies with small non-clinical samples (e.g., n=17 in [81], n=41 in [34], and the caregiver studies [17,20]). The paper itself acknowledges in the Discussion that 'Current studies often rely on short-term measures and non-clinical populations, limiting the generalizability of findings, as well as their replicability.' This acknowledgment is in tension with the abstract's claim that the insights are 'grounded in evidence.' To make the central claim defensible, the authors should either (a) reframe the six insights as context-bound observations or testable hypotheses, or (b) add a systematic or semi-systematic literature search demonstrating that the patterns hold beyond their own studies.
  2. [Section 2.2] The insight 'robot doesn't need to be a companion to improve wellbeing' is supported mainly by feasibility arguments (cost, market availability) and by the authors' own coach-deployment studies, rather than by direct comparative evidence. Notably, the one comparative study cited, Jeong et al. [39], found that the companion role was more effective than the coach role in building therapeutic alliance and enhancing wellbeing. The claim that companionship is unnecessary does not follow from the cited evidence. Please either present direct comparisons of coach and companion roles on wellbeing outcomes or soften the insight to state that coach roles can be effective in specific deployment contexts.
  3. [Section 2.5] The claim that 'one-off HRI may be not enough for improving mental wellbeing, but it can help!' is not directly supported by the studies cited. The one-off studies [34,58] assess wellbeing or support anxiety reduction in a specific procedure, and the evidence for within-session emotional gains comes from a longitudinal study [78] that is not a one-off interaction. The paper should clarify what 'help' means here (e.g., assessment value, short-term mood effects) and should cite studies with pre-post measures of one-off interactions if that is the claim.
  4. [Section 2.3] The virtual-modality insight rests primarily on two same-group studies [20,17] with self-reported outcomes and no control condition. The additional equivalence studies cited [53–55] concern general perceptions and behavior in HRI, not wellbeing outcomes specifically. To support the strong claim that virtual interactions can effectively support wellbeing, the paper should either provide direct evidence of comparable wellbeing outcomes for physical versus virtual robot delivery or limit the claim to feasibility and accessibility advantages.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] There is a typo: 'reseach' should be 'research.'
  2. [Section 2.3] The phrase 'relaying on context and settings' should be 'relying on context and settings.'
  3. [Section 1 and Section 4] The Introduction states that the paper is 'not intended as a comprehensive review,' but Section 4 opens with 'This paper has provided a comprehensive examination.' Please align these statements to avoid an internal contradiction.
  4. [References] References [14] and [34] appear to be the same conference paper (Abbasi et al., 'Can robots help in the evaluation of mental wellbeing in children?') and should be consolidated.
  5. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'It is important to be vigilant about this post-study as well' is ambiguous; presumably 'post-screening' is intended.
  6. [Section 2.6] There is a missing space around the comma in 'by using a LLM) , with participants'; insert the space and remove the comma before the relative clause.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a perspective piece that synthesizes cited empirical studies; no prediction or derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive a predictive model or formal result; it presents six qualitative insights explicitly framed as 'drawing on a range of empirical studies and practical deployments.' Each insight is supported by cited prior work, including independent studies (e.g., Jeong et al. [39], Fogelson et al. [37], Rossi et al. [80]) alongside the authors' own studies. There are no equations, no fitted parameters, no invoked uniqueness theorems, and no quantity that is defined in terms of the outcome it is said to predict. The authors' self-citations are used as empirical evidence for the phenomena they describe (e.g., self-disclosure, virtual interaction, limited adaptivity), and those prior studies are externally falsifiable empirical investigations rather than unverified self-referential premises. Notably, the paper's own Discussion acknowledges the evidentiary limits: 'Current studies often rely on short-term measures and non-clinical populations, limiting the generalizability of findings, as well as their replicability.' This transparency further undercuts any charge that the insights are forced by construction. Heavy self-citation alone is not circularity under the stated rules, and no specific reduction of a conclusion to its own input can be quoted. The central claim—that robots are best understood as supportive tools grounded in evidence—is an interpretive recommendation, not a derivation, so no circular step exists.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. It rests on domain assumptions about the validity and generalizability of the authors' prior HRI studies, the reliability of mentalization as a substitute for adaptivity, and the appropriateness of non-clinical deployment contexts.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The empirical studies cited, many conducted by the authors themselves, are internally valid and their findings are generalizable across contexts and populations.
    The insights in Sections 2.2 to 2.6 are presented as general design lessons drawn from these studies without a systematic evidence synthesis.
  • domain assumption Mentalization, the human tendency to attribute intent and social qualities to robots, reliably compensates for the absence of actual adaptivity in wellbeing interactions.
    Section 2.6 leans on this psychological tendency to argue that adaptation is optional, citing a limited set of studies.
  • domain assumption Non-clinical, preventive wellbeing support is a legitimate and feasible target for social robots, distinct from clinical treatment.
    The introduction and Section 2.1 scope the paper to non-clinical settings and preventive applications, assuming this boundary is meaningful and workable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critical Insights about Robots for Mental Wellbeing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYW3IKKG

@misc{pith2026250613739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critical Insights about Robots for Mental Wellbeing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYW3IKKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13739}
}
read the original abstract

Social robots are increasingly being explored as tools to support emotional wellbeing, particularly in non-clinical settings. Drawing on a range of empirical studies and practical deployments, this paper outlines six key insights that highlight both the opportunities and challenges in using robots to promote mental wellbeing. These include (1) the lack of a single, objective measure of wellbeing, (2) the fact that robots don't need to act as companions to be effective, (3) the growing potential of virtual interactions, (4) the importance of involving clinicians in the design process, (5) the difference between one-off and long-term interactions, and (6) the idea that adaptation and personalization are not always necessary for positive outcomes. Rather than positioning robots as replacements for human therapists, we argue that they are best understood as supportive tools that must be designed with care, grounded in evidence, and shaped by ethical and psychological considerations. Our aim is to inform future research and guide responsible, effective use of robots in mental health and wellbeing contexts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [128]

    In: 2025 34th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN)

    Abbasi, N.I., Dogan, F.I., Laban, G., Anderson, J., Ford, T., Jones, P.B., Gunes, H.: Robot-led vision language model wellbeing assessment of children. In: 2025 34th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN). IEEE, ??? (2025).https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.02765

    arXiv 2025

  2. [81]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09740 (2023)

    Spitale, M., Axelsson, M., Gunes, H.: Vita: A multi-modal llm-based system for longitudinal, autonomous, and adaptive robotic mental well-being coaching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09740 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  3. [34]

    In: 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interac- tive Communication, RO-MAN 2022, Napoli, Italy, August 29 - Sept

    Abbasi, N.I., Spitale, M., Anderson, J., Ford, T., Jones, P.B., Gunes, H.: Can robots help in the evaluation of mental wellbeing in children? an empirical study. In: 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interac- tive Communication, RO-MAN 2022, Napoli, Italy, August 29 - Sept. 2, 2022, pp. 1459–1466 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN5...

    arXiv 2022

  4. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp

    Jeong, S., Aymerich-Franch, L., Alghowinem, S., Picard, R.W., Breazeal, C.L., Park, H.W.: A robotic companion for psychological well-being: A long-term investigation of companionship and therapeutic alliance. In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 485–494 (2023)

    2023

  5. [78]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2503

    Laban, G., Wang, J., Gunes, H.: A Robot-Led Intervention for Emotion Reg- ulation: From Expression to Reappraisal (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 18243

    2025

  6. [1]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 167–175 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1

    Breazeal, C.: Toward sociable robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 42, 167–175 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1 . ID: 271599

    doi:10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00373-1 2003

  7. [2]

    Current Robotics Reports, 9–19 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00035-0 17

    Henschel, A., Laban, G., Cross, E.S.: What makes a robot social? a review of social robots from science fiction to a home or hospital near you. Current Robotics Reports, 9–19 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00035-0 17

    work page doi:10.1007/s43154-020-00035-0 2021

  8. [3]

    European Health Psychologist 23, 1095–1102 (2024)

    Laban, G., Morrison, V., Cross, E.: Social robots for health psychology: A new frontier for improving human health and well-being. European Health Psychologist 23, 1095–1102 (2024)

    2024

Show all 135 references
  1. [4]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research 21, 13203 (2019) https://doi.org/10.2196/13203

    Robinson, N.L., Cottier, T.V., Kavanagh, D.J.: Psychosocial health interventions by social robots: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research 21, 13203 (2019) https://doi.org/10.2196/13203

    2019 doi

  2. [5]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10 (2021) https://doi

    Langer, A., Levy-Tzedek, S.: Emerging roles for social robots in rehabilitation. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10 (2021) https://doi. org/10.1145/3462256

    2021 doi

  3. [6]

    Comprehensive Clinical Psychology 10, 121 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818697-8.00005-4

    Marchetti, A., Dio, C.D., Manzi, F., Massaro, D.: Robotics in clinical and developmental psychology. Comprehensive Clinical Psychology 10, 121 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818697-8.00005-4

    2022 doi

  4. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 1–17 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2025.3567740

    Spitale, M., Axelsson, M., Jeong, S., Tutt¨ os ´ ı, P., Stamatis, C.A., Laban, G., Lim, A., Gunes, H.: Past, present, and future: A survey of the evolution of affective robotics for well-being. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 1–17 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC...

    2025

  5. [8]

    Frontiers in psychiatry 12 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.3389/FPSYT.2021.752874

    Laban, G., Ben-Zion, Z., Cross, E.S.: Social robots for supporting post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis and treatment. Frontiers in psychiatry 12 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.3389/FPSYT.2021.752874

    2022

  6. [9]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 2022 14:5 14, 1–32 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/ S12369-021-00851-0

    Rasouli, S., Gupta, G., Nilsen, E., Dautenhahn, K.: Potential applications of social robots in robot-assisted interventions for social anxiety. International Journal of Social Robotics 2022 14:5 14, 1–32 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/ S12369-021-00851-0

    2022

  7. [10]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (2025) https://doi.org/10

    Abbasi, N.I., Laban, G., Ford, T., Jones, P.B., Gunes, H.: A longitudinal study of child wellbeing assessment via online interactions with a social robot. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (2025) https://doi.org/10. 1145/3722123

    2025

  8. [11]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 16, 999–1046 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-024-01137-X/TABLES/21

    Abbasi, N.I., Spitale, M., Anderson, J., Ford, T., Jones, P.B., Gunes, H.: Analysing children’s responses from multiple modalities during robot-assisted assessment of mental wellbeing. International Journal of Social Robotics 16, 999–1046 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-...

    2024 doi

  9. [12]

    In: 2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), pp

    Abbasi, N.I., Laban, G., Ford, T., Jones, P.B., Gunes, H.: Robo- tising psychometrics: Validating wellbeing assessment tools in child- robot interactions. In: 2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN), pp. 1651–1658. IEEE, ???...

    2024

  10. [13]

    In: 14th International Conference on Social Robotics (2022)

    Abbasi, N., Spitale, M., Anderson, J., Ford, T., Jones, P., Gunes, H.: Com- putational audio modelling for robot-assisted assessment of children’s mental wellbeing. In: 14th International Conference on Social Robotics (2022). https: //doi.org/10.17863/CAM.89924

    2022 doi

  11. [15]

    In: 30th IEEE International Con- ference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2021, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 8-12, 2021, pp

    Bodala, I.P., Churamani, N., Gunes, H.: Teleoperated robot coaching for mindfulness training: A longitudinal study. In: 30th IEEE International Con- ference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2021, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 8-12, 2021, pp. 939–944 (2021). h...

    2021

  12. [16]

    In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2023, Stockholm, Sweden, March 13-16, 2023, pp

    Axelsson, M., Spitale, M., Gunes, H.: Robotic coaches delivering group mind- fulness practice at a public cafe. In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2023, Stockholm, Sweden, March 13-16, 2023, pp. 86–90 (2023). https://doi...

    2023

  13. [17]

    International Journal of Social Robotics (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01207-0

    Laban, G., Morrison, V., Kappas, A., Cross, E.S.: Coping with emotional dis- tress via self-disclosure to robots: An intervention with caregivers. International Journal of Social Robotics (2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01207-0

    2025 doi

  14. [18]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 13(2), 1–55 (2024)

    Axelsson, M., Spitale, M., Gunes, H.: Robots as mental well-being coaches: Design and ethical recommendations. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 13(2), 1–55 (2024)

    2024

  15. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2023, Stockholm, Sweden, March 13-16, 2023, pp

    Spitale, M., Axelsson, M., Gunes, H.: Robotic mental well-being coaches for the workplace: An in-the-wild study on form. In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2023, Stockholm, Sweden, March 13-16, 2023, pp. 301–310 (2023)...

    2023

  16. [20]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 16, 1–27 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01076-z

    Laban, G., Kappas, A., Morrison, V., Cross, E.S.: Building long-term human–robot relationships: Examining disclosure, perception and well-being across time. International Journal of Social Robotics 16, 1–27 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01076-z

    2024 doi

  17. [21]

    Laban, G., Cross, E.S.: Sharing our emotions with robots: Why do we do it and how does it make us feel? IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 1–18 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2024.3470984 19

    2024

  18. [22]

    Personality and Social Psychology Review 15, 290–314 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271

    Busseri, M.A., Sadava, S.W.: A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 15, 290–314 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271

    2010 doi

  19. [23]

    Psychological Bulletin 95, 542–575 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

    Diener, E.: Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 95, 542–575 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

    1984 doi

  20. [24]

    Public Health Reports 133, 136–141 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1177/0033354918754540

    Feller, S.C., Castillo, E.G., Greenberg, J.M., Abascal, P., Mdiv, R.V.H., Wells, K.B., Wells, K.B., Abascal, P., Bromley, E., Castellon-Lopez, Y., Chung, B., Feller, S., Greenberg, J., Hays, R.D., Ijadi-Maghsoodi, R., Jones, L., Kaltman, J., Kataoka, S., Kolhatkar, G., Hunter,...

    2018 doi

  21. [25]

    The Oxford Handbook of Affective Computing, pp

    Schuller, B.: Multimodal Affect Databases: Collection, Challenges, and Chances. The Oxford Handbook of Affective Computing, pp. 323–333. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom (2015)

    2015

  22. [26]

    Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., Berg, A.C., Fei-Fei, L.: Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 115, 211–252 (2015)

    2015

  23. [27]

    Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R.L., Williams, J.B.: The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J. of general internal medicine, 606–613 (2001)

    2001

  24. [28]

    Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., L¨ owe, B.: A brief measure for assess- ing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch. of Int. Med., 1092–1097 (2006)

    2006

  25. [29]

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(3), 614–627 (1996)

    Banse, R., Scherer, K.R.: Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(3), 614–627 (1996)

    1996

  26. [30]

    IEEE Trans

    Gui, J., Chen, T., Zhang, J., Cao, Q., Sun, Z., Luo, H., Tao, D.: A survey on self- supervised learning: Algorithms, applications, and future trends. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 46(12), 9052–9071 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/ TPAMI.2024.3415112

    2024

  27. [31]

    In: 2023 11th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pp

    Jivnani, L., Goodman, F., Rottenberg, J., Canavan, S.: Predicting loneliness from subject self-report. In: 2023 11th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pp. 1–8 (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ACII59096.2023.10388111

    2023

  28. [32]

    In: Social Robotics - 14th International Conference, ICSR 2022, Flo- rence, Italy, December 13-16, 2022, Proceedings, Part II, pp

    Abbasi, N.I., Spitale, M., Anderson, J., Ford, T., Jones, P.B., Gunes, H.: Com- putational audio modelling for robot-assisted assessment of children’s mental 20 wellbeing. In: Social Robotics - 14th International Conference, ICSR 2022, Flo- rence, Italy, December 13-16, 2022, ...

    2022 doi

  29. [33]

    Institute for Social Research 11 (1996)

    Northrup, D.A.: The problem of the self-report in survey research. Institute for Social Research 11 (1996)

    1996

  30. [35]

    Interaction Studies 23, 157–203 (2022)

    Abbasi, N.I., Spitale, M., Jones, P.B., Gunes, H.: Measuring mental wellbeing of children via human-robot interaction: Challenges and opportunities. Interaction Studies 23, 157–203 (2022)

    2022

  31. [36]

    In: AAAI Fall Symposium: Caring Machines, pp

    Stiehl, W.D., Lieberman, J., Breazeal, C., Basel, L., Lalla, L., Wolf, M.: The design of the huggable: A therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: AAAI Fall Symposium: Caring Machines, pp. 91–98 (2005)

    2005

  32. [37]

    Journal of Holistic Nursing 40(4), 397–409 (2022)

    Fogelson, D.M., Rutledge, C., Zimbro, K.S.: The impact of robotic companion pets on depression and loneliness for older adults with dementia during the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Holistic Nursing 40(4), 397–409 (2022)

    2022

  33. [38]

    In: 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids), pp

    Abdollahi, H., Mollahosseini, A., Lane, J.T., Mahoor, M.H.: A pilot study on using an intelligent life-like robot as a companion for elderly individuals with dementia and depression. In: 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids), pp. 541–546 ...

    2017

  34. [40]

    In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp

    Axelsson, M., Spitale, M., Gunes, H.: Robotic coaches delivering group mind- fulness practice at a public cafe. In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 86–90 (2023)

    2023

  35. [41]

    Sensors 21(20), 6865 (2021) 21

    Calatrava-Nicol´ as, F.M., Guti´ errez-Maestro, E., Bautista-Salinas, D., Ortiz, F.J., Gonz´ alez, J.R., Vera-Repullo, J.A., Jim´ enez-Buend ´ ıa, M., M´ endez, I., Ruiz- Esteban, C., Mozos, O.M.: Robotic-based well-being monitoring and coaching system for the elderly in their...

    2021

  36. [42]

    Design for Health 6(2), 138–162 (2022)

    Alves-Oliveira, P., Budhiraja, T., So, S., Karim, R., Bj¨ orling, E., Cakmak, M.: Robot-mediated interventions for youth mental health. Design for Health 6(2), 138–162 (2022)

    2022

  37. [43]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 104193 (2022)

    Mahdi, H., Akgun, S.A., Saleh, S., Dautenhahn, K.: A survey on the design and evolution of social robots—past, present and future. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 104193 (2022)

    2022

  38. [44]

    2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 1697–1704 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309551

    Laban, G., Kappas, A., Morrison, V., Cross, E.S.: Opening up to social robots: How emotions drive self-disclosure behavior. 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 1697–1704 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309551

    2023

  39. [45]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 15(9), 1525–1542 (2023)

    Spitale, M., Silleresi, S., Garzotto, F., Matari´ c, M.J.: Using socially assistive robots in speech-language therapy for children with language impairments. International Journal of Social Robotics 15(9), 1525–1542 (2023)

    2023

  40. [46]

    Proceedings of we robot (2022)

    Bj¨ orling, E., Riek, L.: Designing for exit: How to let robots go. Proceedings of we robot (2022)

    2022

  41. [47]

    Science Robotics 5 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1126/ scirobotics.abc9014

    Scassellati, B., V´ azquez, M.: The potential of socially assistive robots during infectious disease outbreaks. Science Robotics 5 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1126/ scirobotics.abc9014

    2020

  42. [48]

    Science Robotics 5, 5589 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/SCIROBOTICS.ABB5589

    Yang, G.-Z., Nelson, B.J., Murphy, R.R., Choset, H., Christensen, H., Collins, S.H., Dario, P., Goldberg, K., Ikuta, K., Jacobstein, N., Kragic, D., Taylor, R.H., McNutt, M.: Combating covid-19—the role of robotics in managing public health and infectious diseases. Science Rob...

    2020 doi

  43. [49]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3405450

    Feil-Seifer, D., Haring, K.S., Rossi, S., Wagner, A.R., Williams, T.: Where to next? the impact of covid-19 on human-robot interaction research. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3405450

    2020 doi

  44. [50]

    Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 38, 2397–2418 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211029378

    Choi, M., Choung, H.: Mediated communication matters during the covid-19 pandemic: The use of interpersonal and masspersonal media and psychological well-being:. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 38, 2397–2418 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211029378

    2021 doi

  45. [51]

    2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, ICORR’07, 751–756 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2007.4428509

    Heerink, M., Kr¨ ose, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Observing conversational expres- siveness of elderly users interacting with a robot and screen agent. 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, ICORR’07, 751–756 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2...

    2007

  46. [52]

    Social Cognition 26, 169–181 (2008) https: 22 //doi.org/10.1521/SOCO.2008.26.2.169

    Kiesler, S., Powers, A., Fussell, S.R., Torrey, C.: Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot–like agent. Social Cognition 26, 169–181 (2008) https: 22 //doi.org/10.1521/SOCO.2008.26.2.169

    2008 doi

  47. [53]

    Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 12, 136–159 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0011

    Laban, G., George, J.-N., Morrison, V., Cross, E.S.: Tell me more! assessing inter- actions with social robots from speech. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 12, 136–159 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0011

    2021 doi

  48. [54]

    Honig, S., Oron-Gilad, T.: Comparing laboratory user studies and video- enhanced web surveys for eliciting user gestures in human-robot interactions, pp. 248–250. Association for Computing Machinery, ??? (2020). https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3371382.3378325 . https://dl.acm.org/doi...

    2020

  49. [55]

    Digest of Technical Papers - IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics 2022-January (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE53296.2022.9730259

    Gittens, C.L., Garnes, D.: Zenbo on zoom: Evaluating the human-robot interac- tion user experience in a video conferencing session. Digest of Technical Papers - IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics 2022-January (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE53296.2022.9730259

    2022

  50. [56]

    Management Science 32, 554–571 (1986) https: //doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554

    Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H.: Organizational information requirements, media rich- ness and structural design. Management Science 32, 554–571 (1986) https: //doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 . doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554; 30

    1986 doi

  51. [57]

    The Academy of Management Journal 42, 153–170 (1999) https://doi.org/10.2307/257090

    Carlson, J.R., Zmud, R.W.: Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. The Academy of Management Journal 42, 153–170 (1999) https://doi.org/10.2307/257090

    1999 doi

  52. [58]

    89–94 (2022)

    Matheus, K., V´ azquez, M., Scassellati, B.: A social robot for anxiety reduction via deep breathing, pp. 89–94 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN53752. 2022.9900638

    2022

  53. [59]

    Scientific Reports 10, 1–15 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66982-y

    Geva, N., Uzefovsky, F., Levy-Tzedek, S.: Touching the social robot paro reduces pain perception and salivary oxytocin levels. Scientific Reports 10, 1–15 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66982-y

    2020 doi

  54. [60]

    Polak, R.F., Tzedek, S.L.: Social robot for rehabilitation: Expert clinicians and post-stroke patients’ evaluation following a long-term intervention, pp. 151–

  55. [61]

    Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 0, 121 (2022) https://doi.org/10

    Dembovski, A., Amitai, Y., Levy-Tzedek, S.: A socially assistive robot for stroke patients: Acceptance, needs, and concerns of patients and informal care- givers. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 0, 121 (2022) https://doi.org/10. 3389/FRESC.2021.793233

    2022

  56. [62]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (2021) https:// doi.org/10.1145/3570168 23

    Bar-On, I., Mayo, G., Levy-Tzedek, S.: Socially assistive robots for parkinson’s disease: Needs, attitudes and specific applications as identified by healthcare professionals. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (2021) https:// doi.org/10.1145/3570168 23

    2021 doi

  57. [63]

    (eds.) What Is Caregiving and How Should We Study It?, pp

    Revenson, T.A., Griva, K., Luszczynska, A., Morrison, V., Panagopoulou, E., Vilchinsky, N., Hagedoorn, M.: In: Revenson, T.A., Griva, K., Luszczynska, A., Morrison, V., Panagopoulou, E., Vilchinsky, N., Hagedoorn, M. (eds.) What Is Caregiving and How Should We Study It?, pp. 1...

    2016 doi

  58. [64]

    Journal of Clinical Oncology 25, 4829–4834 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.10.0909

    Braun, M., Mikulincer, M., Rydall, A., Walsh, A., Rodin, G.: Hidden morbidity in cancer: Spouse caregivers. Journal of Clinical Oncology 25, 4829–4834 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.10.0909

    2007 doi

  59. [65]

    Psychogeriatrics 19, 65 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1111/PSYG.12365

    Sambasivam, R., Liu, J., Vaingankar, J.A., Ong, H.L., Tan, M.E., Fauziana, R., Picco, L., Chong, S.A., Subramaniam, M.: The hidden patient: chronic physical morbidity, psychological distress, and quality of life in caregivers of older adults. Psychogeriatrics 19, 65 (2019) htt...

    2019 doi

  60. [66]

    Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 38, 279–300 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1177/0265407520959463

    Croes, E.A.J., Antheunis, M.L.: Can we be friends with mitsuku? a longitudinal study on the process of relationship formation between humans and a social chatbot. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 38, 279–300 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1177/0265407520959463 . doi: 1...

    2020 doi

  61. [67]

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, 893–910 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893

    Chartrand, T.L., Bargh, J.A.: The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, 893–910 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893

    1999 doi

  62. [68]

    In: Proceedings of the 2018 Acm/ieee International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, pp

    Winkle, K., Caleb-Solly, P., Turton, A., Bremner, P.: Social robots for engage- ment in rehabilitative therapies: Design implications from a study with ther- apists. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Acm/ieee International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, pp. 289–297 (2018)

    2018

  63. [69]

    In: IEEE/RSJ IROS Workshop on Assistive Robotics for Individuals with Disabilities (2014)

    ˇSabanovi´ c, S., Bennett, C.C., Piatt, J.A., Chang, W., Hakken, D., Kang, S., Ayer, D.: Participatory design of socially assistive robots for preventive patient- centered healthcare. In: IEEE/RSJ IROS Workshop on Assistive Robotics for Individuals with Disabilities (2014)

    2014

  64. [70]

    Routledge, ??? (2016)

    Van Wynsberghe, A.: Healthcare Robots: Ethics, Design and Implementation. Routledge, ??? (2016)

    2016

  65. [71]

    In: 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp

    Axelsson, M., Bodala, I.P., Gunes, H.: Participatory design of a robotic mental well-being coach. In: 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 1081–1088 (2021). IEEE

    2021

  66. [72]

    In: 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp

    Alves-Oliveira, P., Bj¨ orling, E.A., Wiesmann, P., Dwikat, H., Bhatia, S., Mihata, K., Cakmak, M.: Robots for connection: A co-design study with adolescents. In: 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 578–583 (2022). IEEE

    2022

  67. [73]

    24 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 53(4), 229 (2001)

    Hart, V., Blattner, J., Leipsic, S.: Coaching versus therapy: A perspective. 24 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 53(4), 229 (2001)

    2001

  68. [74]

    The Journal of Positive Psychology 1(3), 142–149 (2006)

    Green, L.S., Oades, L.G., Grant, A.M.: Cognitive-behavioral, solution-focused life coaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope. The Journal of Positive Psychology 1(3), 142–149 (2006)

    2006

  69. [75]

    De Shazer, S., Dolan, Y.: More than miracles: The state of the art of solution- focused brief therapy (2012)

    2012

  70. [76]

    miracle”: Examining the “miracle question

    Strong, T., Pyle, N.R.: Constructing a conversational “miracle”: Examining the “miracle question” as it is used in therapeutic dialogue. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 22(4), 328–353 (2009)

    2009

  71. [77]

    Australian Psychologist 42(4), 266–267 (2007)

    Seligman, M.E.: Coaching and positive psychology. Australian Psychologist 42(4), 266–267 (2007)

    2007

  72. [79]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (2025)

    Axelsson, M., Churamani, N., C ¸ aldir, A., Gunes, H.: Participant perceptions of a robotic coach conducting positive psychology exercises: A qualitative analysis. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (2025)

    2025

  73. [80]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 12, 765–777 (2020)

    Rossi, S., Larafa, M., Ruocco, M.: Emotional and behavioural distraction by a social robot for children anxiety reduction during vaccination. International Journal of Social Robotics 12, 765–777 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    The SAGE handbook of coaching, 195–217 (2017)

    De Haan, E., Gannon, J.: The coaching relationship. The SAGE handbook of coaching, 195–217 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    In: 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp

    Spitale, M., Axelsson, M., Kara, N., Gunes, H.: Longitudinal evolution of coachees’ behavioural responses to interaction ruptures in robotic positive psy- chology coaching. In: 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 3...

    2023

  76. [84]

    Smedegaard, C.V.: Reframing the role of novelty within social hri: From noise to information, pp. 411–420. IEEE Press, ??? (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ HRI.2019.8673219

    2019

  77. [85]

    1, 1st edn., pp

    Gratch, J., Lucas, G.: Rapport Between Humans and Socially Inter- active Agents, vol. 1, 1st edn., pp. 433–462. Association for Com- puting Machinery, ??? (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3477322.3477335 . 25 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3477322.3477335

    2021

  78. [86]

    2022 10th International Confer- ence on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos, ACIIW 2022 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIIW57231.2022.10086005

    Churamani, N., Axelsson, M., Caldir, A., Gunes, H.: Continual learning for affec- tive robotics: A proof of concept for wellbeing. 2022 10th International Confer- ence on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos, ACIIW 2022 (2022) https://doi.org/10....

    2022

  79. [87]

    Psychological Bulletin 134, 138–161 (2008) https: //doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138

    Steel, P., Schmidt, J., Shultz, J.: Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 134, 138–161 (2008) https: //doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138

    2008 doi

  80. [88]

    Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 2017, Vol

    Ahmad, M.I., Mubin, O., Orlando, J.: A systematic review of adaptivity in human-robot interaction. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 2017, Vol. 1, Page 14 1, 14 (2017) https://doi.org/10.3390/MTI1030014

    2017 doi

  81. [89]

    1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223564

    Churamani, N., Kalkan, S., Gunes, H.: Continual learning for affective robotics: Why, what and how? 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2020, 425–431 (2020) https://doi.org/10. 1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223564

    2020

  82. [90]

    Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics 3, 100131 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIROB.2023.100131

    Zhang, C., Chen, J., Li, J., Peng, Y., Mao, Z.: Large language models for human–robot interaction: A review. Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics 3, 100131 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIROB.2023.100131

    2023

  83. [91]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10, 31 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1145/3412374

    Hoffman, G., Zhao, X.: A primer for conducting experiments in human–robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 10, 31 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1145/3412374

    2020 doi

  84. [92]

    International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–12 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-023-01027-8/ FIGURES/2

    Akalin, N., Kiselev, A., Kristoffersson, A., Loutfi, A.: A taxonomy of factors influencing perceived safety in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–12 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/S12369-023-01027-8/ FIGURES/2

    2023 doi

  85. [93]

    Current Robotics Reports 1, 85–96 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00010-9

    Wullenkord, R., Eyssel, F.: Societal and ethical issues in hri. Current Robotics Reports 1, 85–96 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154-020-00010-9

    2020 doi

  86. [94]

    Lee, M., Sin, J., Laban, G., Kraus, M., Clark, L., Porcheron, M., Cowan, B.R., Følstad, A., Munteanu, C., Candello, H.: Ethics of conversational user interfaces, pp. 1–7. Association for Computing Machinery, ??? (2022). https://doi.org/10. 1145/3491101.3503699 . https://doi.or...

    2022

  87. [95]

    The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy Section A 36, 673–681 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748408402186/ ASSET/14640748408402186.FP.PNG V03

    Broadbent, D.: Mental models. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy Section A 36, 673–681 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748408402186/ ASSET/14640748408402186.FP.PNG V03

    1984

  88. [96]

    Psychological Review 114, 864–886 (2007) https://doi

    Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T.: On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114, 864–886 (2007) https://doi. 26 org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864

    2007 doi

  89. [97]

    ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction 2019-March, 239–248 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI

    Graaf, M.M.A.D., Malle, B.F.: People’s explanations of robot behavior subtly reveal mental state inferences. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction 2019-March, 239–248 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI. 2019.8673308

    2019

  90. [98]

    Current opinion in psychology 24, 1 (2018) https://doi

    Kliemann, D., Adolphs, R.: The social neuroscience of mentalizing: challenges and recommendations. Current opinion in psychology 24, 1 (2018) https://doi. org/10.1016/J.COPSYC.2018.02.015

    2018 doi

  91. [99]

    Collabra: Psychology 8 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1525/ COLLABRA.37602/192147

    Weinstein, N.Y., Whitmore, L.B., Mills, K.L.: Individual differences in men- talizing tendencies. Collabra: Psychology 8 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1525/ COLLABRA.37602/192147

    2022

  92. [100]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 11 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3526112

    Thellman, S., Graaf, M.D., Ziemke, T.: Mental state attribution to robots: A systematic review of conceptions, methods, and findings. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 11 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3526112

    2022 doi

  93. [101]

    Scientific Reports 2022 12:1 12, 1–14 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19213-5

    Spatola, N., Marchesi, S., Wykowska, A.: Cognitive load affects early processes involved in mentalizing robot behaviour. Scientific Reports 2022 12:1 12, 1–14 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19213-5

    2022 doi

  94. [102]

    American Journal of Sociology 63, 597–606 (1958) https://doi.org/10.1086/222355

    Homans, G.C.: Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology 63, 597–606 (1958) https://doi.org/10.1086/222355

    1958 doi

  95. [103]

    Laban, G., Morrison, V., Kappas, A., Cross, E.S.: Informal caregivers dis- close increasingly more to a social robot over time, pp. 1–7. Association for Computing Machinery, ??? (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519666 . https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519666

    2022

  96. [104]

    In: 2025 34th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN)

    Laban, G., Chiang, S., Gunes, H.: What people share with a robot when feeling lonely and stressed and how it helps over time. In: 2025 34th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN). IEEE, ??? (2025). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.02991

    2025 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Perspectives on psy- chological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science 5, 219 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336

    Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., Epley, N.: Who sees human? the stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on psy- chological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science 5, 219 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336

    2014 doi

  98. [106]

    The Counseling Psychologist 13, 155–243 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0011000085132001

    Gelso, C.J., Carter, J.A.: The relationship in counseling and psychother- apy. The Counseling Psychologist 13, 155–243 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0011000085132001

    1985

  99. [107]

    Journal of Counseling Psychology 27 41, 296–306 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.41.3.296

    Gelso, C.J., Carter, J.A.: Components of the psychotherapy relationship: Their interaction and unfolding during treatment. Journal of Counseling Psychology 27 41, 296–306 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.41.3.296

    1994 doi

  100. [108]

    Studies in health technology and informatics 306, 57–62 (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.3233/SHTI230596

    Ahn, S., Moon, I.: A study on standard for safety requirements for care robots. Studies in health technology and informatics 306, 57–62 (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.3233/SHTI230596

    2023 doi

  101. [109]

    Law, Innovation and Technology 9, 1–44 (2017) https://doi.org/10

    Leenes, R., Palmerini, E., Koops, B.J., Bertolini, A., Salvini, P., Lucivero, F.: Regulatory challenges of robotics: some guidelines for addressing legal and eth- ical issues. Law, Innovation and Technology 9, 1–44 (2017) https://doi.org/10. 1080/17579961.2017.1304921

    2017

  102. [110]

    Medicine 102, 36671 (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.1097/MD.0000000000036671

    Elendu, C., Amaechi, D.C., Elendu, T.C., Jingwa, K.A., Okoye, O.K., Okah, M.J., Ladele, J.A., Farah, A.H., Alimi, H.A.: Ethical implications of ai and robotics in healthcare: A review. Medicine 102, 36671 (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.1097/MD.0000000000036671

    2023 doi

  103. [111]

    Focus: Journal of Life Long Learning in Psychiatry 16, 402 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1176/APPI.FOCUS.20180022

    Stubbe, D.E.: The therapeutic alliance: The fundamental element of psychother- apy. Focus: Journal of Life Long Learning in Psychiatry 16, 402 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1176/APPI.FOCUS.20180022

    2018 doi

  104. [112]

    Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 2, 100049 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHBAH.2024.100049

    Yang, W., Xie, Y.: Can robots elicit empathy? the effects of social robots’ appear- ance on emotional contagion. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 2, 100049 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHBAH.2024.100049

    2024

  105. [113]

    Interna- tional journal of social robotics 8, 589–598 (2016)

    De Graaf, M.M.: An ethical evaluation of human–robot relationships. Interna- tional journal of social robotics 8, 589–598 (2016)

    2016

  106. [114]

    Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses (2008)

    Titler, M.G.: The evidence for evidence-based practice implementation. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses (2008)

    2008

  107. [115]

    Cur- rent Robotics Reports 2022 3:4 3, 281–292 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/ S43154-022-00094-5

    Gunes, H., Broz, F., Crawford, C.S., P¨ utten, A.R.-V.D., Strait, M., Riek, L.: Reproducibility in human-robot interaction: Furthering the science of hri. Cur- rent Robotics Reports 2022 3:4 3, 281–292 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/ S43154-022-00094-5

    2022

  108. [116]

    Spitale, M., Stower, R., Yadollahi, E., Parreira, M.T., Abbasi, N.I., Leite, I., Gunes, H.: A systematic review on reproducibility in child-robot interaction (2023)

    2023

  109. [117]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 16(5), 937–951 (2024)

    Robinson, N.L., Connolly, J., Suddrey, G., Kavanagh, D.J.: A brief wellbe- ing training session delivered by a humanoid social robot: a pilot randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Social Robotics 16(5), 937–951 (2024)

    2024

  110. [118]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research21, 13216 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.2196/13216 28

    Fiske, A., Henningsen, P., Buyx, A.: Your robot therapist will see you now: Ethical implications of embodied artificial intelligence in psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy. Journal of Medical Internet Research21, 13216 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.2196/13216 28

    2019 doi

  111. [119]

    Medicine 101, 32554 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000032554

    Reist, C., Petiwala, I., Latimer, J., Raffaelli, S.B., Chiang, M., Eisenberg, D., Campbell, S.: Collaborative mental health care: A narrative review. Medicine 101, 32554 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000032554

    2022 doi

  112. [120]

    Current psychiatry reports 15, 383 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1007/S11920-013-0383-2

    Goodrich, D.E., Kilbourne, A.M., Nord, K.M., Bauer, M.S.: Mental health col- laborative care and its role in primary care settings. Current psychiatry reports 15, 383 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1007/S11920-013-0383-2

    2013 doi

  113. [121]

    Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 8, 291–316 (2012) https:// doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-CLINPSY-032511-143058/CITE/REFWORKS

    Bornstein, R.F.: From dysfunction to adaptation: An interactionist model of dependency. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 8, 291–316 (2012) https:// doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-CLINPSY-032511-143058/CITE/REFWORKS

    2012 doi

  114. [122]

    First Monday 11, 5 (2006) https://doi.org/10.5210/FM.V11I9.1394

    Barnes, S.B.: A privacy paradox: Social networking in the united states. First Monday 11, 5 (2006) https://doi.org/10.5210/FM.V11I9.1394

    2006 doi

  115. [123]

    Organization Science 10, 104–115 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.10.1.104

    Culnan, M.J., Armstrong, P.K.: Information privacy concerns, procedural fair- ness, and impersonal trust: An empirical investigation. Organization Science 10, 104–115 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.10.1.104

    1999 doi

  116. [124]

    Communication Research 51, 178–202 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00936502221102101

    Meier, Y., Kr¨ amer, N.C.: The privacy calculus revisited: An empirical inves- tigation of online privacy decisions on between- and within-person lev- els. Communication Research 51, 178–202 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00936502221102101

    2022

  117. [125]

    HAI 2022 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 57–66 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3527188.3561929

    Laban, G., Araujo, T.: Don’t take it personally: Resistance to individually tar- geted recommendations from conversational recommender agents. HAI 2022 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 57–66 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3527188.3561929

    2022

  118. [126]

    Sci 2024, Vol

    Tavares, S., Ferrara, E.: Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Sci 2024, Vol. 6, Page 36, 3 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3390/SCI6010003

    2023 doi

  119. [127]

    Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy25, 1979 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1111/HEX.13554

    Shea, L., Pesa, J., Geonnotti, G., Powell, V., Kahn, C., Peters, W.: Improving diversity in study participation: Patient perspectives on barriers, racial dif- ferences and the role of communities. Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health...

    2022 doi

  120. [129]

    Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 2023 10:1 10, 1–12 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02079-x 29

    Chen, Z.: Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 2023 10:1 10, 1–12 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02079-x 29

    2023 doi

  121. [130]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research 20, 10410 (2018) https://doi.org/10.2196/10410

    Cresswell, K., Cunningham-Burley, S., Sheikh, A.: Health care robotics: Qual- itative exploration of key challenges and future directions. Journal of Medical Internet Research 20, 10410 (2018) https://doi.org/10.2196/10410

    2018 doi

  122. [131]

    Government Information Quarterly 39, 101683 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2022

    Willems, J., Schmidthuber, L., Vogel, D., Ebinger, F., Vanderelst, D.: Ethics of robotized public services: The role of robot design and its actions. Government Information Quarterly 39, 101683 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2022. 101683

    2022 doi

  123. [132]

    danger, will robinson!

    Vanman, E.J., Kappas, A.: “danger, will robinson!” the challenges of social robots for intergroup relations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 13, 12489 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1111/SPC3.12489

    2019 doi

  124. [133]

    In: Proceedings of the 2025 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Nigro, M., Akinrintoyo, E., Salomons, N., Spitale, M.: Social group human-robot interaction: A scoping review of computational challenges. In: Proceedings of the 2025 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. HRI ’25, pp. 468–478. IEEE Press, ??? (2025). ht...

    2025 doi

  125. [134]

    Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (2020) https://doi.org/10.1145/3406499

    ˇSabanovi´ c, S.: We’re in this together: Social robots in group, organizational, and community interactions. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (2020) https://doi.org/10.1145/3406499

    2020 doi

  126. [135]

    Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 2021, Vol

    Oliveira, R., Arriaga, P., Paiva, A.: Human-robot interaction in groups: Method- ological and research practices. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 2021, Vol. 5, Page 59 5, 59 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/MTI5100059 30

    2021 doi

  127. [160]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3319502.3374797

    Association for Computing Machinery, ??? (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3319502.3374797 . https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374797

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.