Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Concerns and Values in Human-Robot Interactions: A Focus on Social Robotics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper maps the values at stake when robots enter homes, schools, and care settings into eight named values — agency, autonomy, connectedness, privacy, equity, dignity, virtue, and welfare — and offers a web tool that prompts designers…

desk verdict A useful, transparently-built value framework for social HRI whose tool-effectiveness claim outruns the pilot evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05628 v2 pith:SQK34MQZ submitted 2025-01-10 cs.RO cs.HC

Giulio Antonio Abbo , Tony Belpaeme , Micol Spitale This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords human-robotinteractionsocialroboticsinteraction-drivenvaluesroboethicsvalue-sensitivedesignscopingreviewexpertfocusgroupstool
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

The paper is trying to establish that the ethical values that matter most for social robots are the ones that emerge from the interaction itself — dependency, attachment, manipulation, surveillance, social substitution — rather than only the values stakeholders bring to the table beforehand. It claims these interaction-driven values can be identified systematically and consolidated into a single map: eight values with 26 topics, each topic carrying a positive or negative valence. The paper also claims that this map can be put to work, in the form of the HRI Value Compass, a web tool that guides researchers through their design context, surfaces the relevant values, and links each one to the supporting literature. A pilot study with twenty HRI researchers is offered as evidence that the tool helps researchers notice values they would not have considered on their own. If these claims hold, robot designers in healthcare, education, and home settings gain a practical, literature-grounded starting point for building robots that respect human values.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the HRI Value Compass, a web tool (with a paper version for group brainstorming) structured in three steps: contextual information, where designers answer who/what/where/when/why/how questions; values and topics, the core of the tool, where each of the eight values unfolds into positive and negative topics with definitions, reflection questions, and links to the scoping-review references; and a results overview that summarises the designer's inputs. The framework around it is the eight-value, 26-topic map with valenced topics, which lets a single value carry both a benefit and a risk — companionship and social substitute under connectedness, for example. What makes the machinery work is the closed-loop method: the values originate in a systematic literature review, are corrected by expert focus groups, and are then operationalised in the tool, whose reference links point back to the same literature that produced the values. The paper adopts a contractualist definition of value — something is good because of the reasons it gives us in a situation — which is what allows the same framework to be context-sensitive rather than a list of universal maxims.

What would settle it

Run a two-arm version of the Phase 3 pilot: one group uses the HRI Value Compass while a control group receives the same scenarios and the same open reflection questions on a plain form with no value list, then compare the number, breadth, and novelty of the values each group names. If the control group names the same values, the tool adds nothing beyond the questioning structure; if the compass group names values that map to topics absent from the control group's set, the effectiveness claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ethical landscape of human-robot interaction can be organised into a deliberately small set of interaction-driven values — agency, autonomy, connectedness, privacy, equity, dignity, virtue, and welfare — refined from the literature with the help of technology-ethics experts, and that this set can be embedded in a practical design tool. The paper derives the values in a closed loop: a PRISMA-guided scoping review of 43 publications since 2006 produced initial topics; two focus groups of six experts challenged and reshaped them, for instance replacing 'honour' with 'dignity', separating agency from autonomy, and moving 'manipulation' under autonomy; the refined framework was then built into the HRI Value Compass, a web tool that asks designers about the context of their scenario (who, what, where, when, why, how), leads them through each value and its positive and negative topics, and links every topic to the surveyed literature. The paper reports that the tool was effective in a pilot with twenty HRI researchers, who rated it useful, said it helped them surface values they would not have thought of, and gave it a usability score in line with the average for digital tools. The intended consequence is that value reflection moves into the early design phase of robotic systems, so that concerns such as deskilling, panopticon-style surveillance, manipulation, and social substitution are anticipated rather than discovered after deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the twenty researchers' self-reported ratings measure the tool's real contribution, because the pilot has no control condition: if the same values would have been named from the scenario prompt alone, or if the positive ratings reflect politeness and menu exposure rather than genuine insight, the claim that the tool is effective collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robot designers in healthcare, education, and home settings gain a ready-made, literature-linked checklist of eight values, so ethical reflection can happen early in the design process instead of after deployment.
  • Because each value splits into positive and negative topics, the tool forces designers to consider both faces of a design choice — companionship versus social substitution, for example — rather than treating a value as a box to tick.
  • The context questions make value identification scenario-dependent, which the paper argues is essential since the same value, such as privacy, carries different weight at home, in a classroom, and in a care facility.
  • The pilot indicates the tool supports group design settings, where a shared value vocabulary can structure co-design conversations among researchers and stakeholders.
  • The framework is explicitly reductionist by design, so it serves as a scaffold for reflection that the authors expect to be extended as robot capabilities and real-world deployments evolve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pilot measures the tool's effectiveness through self-reported usefulness with no control condition, so the cleanest test of the central claim would be a comparison arm that receives the same scenarios and reflection questions without the value list; without it, increased value identification could come from the questionnaire structure or from social desirability rather than from the framework
  • Because the surveyed literature and the expert panels are almost entirely Western, the eight-value map is plausibly culture-bound; running the same elicitation with non-Western ethics experts could reveal missing values or reweight existing ones.
  • The framework's granular topics could be operationalised beyond design-time prompts, for instance as an evaluation rubric for auditing an existing robot's interaction design, a step the paper does not itself take.
  • The high mental-demand and effort scores in the pilot suggest a usability ceiling; a version that filters topics by the chosen context could lower the workload and broaden who can use the tool.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a three-phase study on values and ethical concerns in social human-robot interaction. Phase 1 is a PRISMA-based scoping review of 43 publications (2006-2023) in healthcare, education, and home contexts, from which the authors extract 24 initial topics under 9 value themes. Phase 2 uses two focus groups with technology-ethics experts to refine this material into 8 values and 26 valenced topics. Phase 3 presents the HRI Value Compass, a web tool that guides researchers through contextual questions, value/topic reflection prompts, and a results overview, and reports a pilot evaluation with 20 HRI researchers who used the tool on two scenarios and then completed SUS, NASA-TLX, Likert items, and open-ended questions. The stated contributions are an overview of value discussions in HRI, an expert-refined list of topics and values, and a tool whose effectiveness is claimed to have been demonstrated by the pilot.

Significance. If the value taxonomy is the contribution, the paper is a useful synthesis: the PRISMA flow, per-paper extraction tables, expert involvement, public web tool, paper version, and explicit limitations give the HRI community a workable starting point. The initial value list is grounded in 43 external papers, which avoids the circularity of an author-derived taxonomy. The comparison with Schwartz, Moral Foundations Theory, MEESTAR, the Ethics Canvas, and the Equitable Design Framework is informative. The central weakness is that the third contribution, namely the claim in Section 7 that the pilot 'demonstrated the tool's effectiveness', is not supported by the reported evidence: the evaluation has no control or baseline, no objective outcome, and its main supporting items are self-reports elicited after exposure to the tool's value list. The paper's durable value lies in the synthesis and design artifact, not in the demonstrated effectiveness.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2–§5.3, Table 6, §7] The claim in Section 7 that the pilot demonstrated the tool's effectiveness is not supported by the study design. All 20 participants used the tool, with no control condition, no unaided baseline, and no objective outcome. The key Likert item in Table 6 ('The tool helped me to extract values that I would not have thought about without using it,' M=4.05) was administered after participants had just been exposed to the tool's list of values and topics, so it cannot distinguish the tool's contribution from the mere presentation of a static checklist or from demand characteristics; the acknowledged recruitment through professional connections in Section 5.4 increases this risk. The usability evidence is also mixed: SUS is 68.38, which is near average, and raw NASA-TLX is 48.17 with mental demand at 69.75. At most the pilot provides usability feedback and self-reported usefulness, not demonstrated effectiveness. Please either add an appropriate comparison condition or recalibrate the claim.
  2. [§4.1] The participant reporting is internally inconsistent. The text says six experts agreed to participate (four male P1-P4 and two female P5-P6), but the group composition lists only P1, P2, and P4 in the first focus group and P5 and P6 in the second, with P3 never assigned. Because the 'comprehensive list' claim in Phase 2 depends on the number and composition of experts, the actual N and group assignments must be corrected and reported.
  3. [Tables 3 and 4, §3.2.3] The per-paper extraction tables are explicitly 'updated with the final values defined at the end of the design process.' This means the value and topic assignments in Tables 3-4 do not necessarily reflect the codes produced during the Phase 1 thematic analysis; they reflect the post-focus-group taxonomy. Reporting final values in the extraction table makes the literature support for the final taxonomy appear stronger and more direct than it is. Please present the initial codes separately, or clearly flag which mappings are retrospective.
  4. [§4.2.2] In Activity 2 of the focus groups, the experts were shown the Phase 1 value list before the final revision. The paper acknowledges this in Section 4.3, but the framing that the final list was validated by the experts should be softened: the activity allowed experts to revise an existing list rather than independently confirming it. Activity 1's scenario-based elicitation partially mitigates the anchoring, but the influence of presenting the initial list on the final taxonomy should be discussed as a methodological constraint.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3] The claim that the focus group analysis 'reached data saturation' is not supported by any saturation test or by a description of when new themes ceased to appear, especially with a small expert sample; please justify or soften this claim.
  2. [Table 6] For the Likert item 'I will use this tool in the future in my HRI studies' the mean is 2.90 with SD 0.79, yet the open-ended results are summarized as 'two users confirmed that they would use the tool again'; please report the distribution or reconcile these statements.
  3. [Tables 3-4 and Appendix C] Several typographical issues should be corrected: table column headers 'T ricking' and 'T ransparency' contain spurious spaces, and Appendix C spells 'Social substitue' instead of 'Social substitute'.
  4. [§3.1.3] The screening process reports a 10-paper calibration exercise but no inter-rater reliability statistic; please add a kappa coefficient or state explicitly that no formal reliability measure was computed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The tool-effectiveness claim reduces to self-report of menu exposure; the value taxonomy itself is independently grounded.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1 (Design of the HRI Value Compass), Section 5.3 Table 6, Section 7 (Conclusion)]
    "Table 6: 'I think that the tool helped me to extract values that I would not have thought about without using it.' (M=4.05). Section 5.1: 'The core of the tool is the section about values and topics... The topics that emerged from the scoping review, grouped by value, are paired with detailed descriptions and questions to spark a deeper reflection.' Section 7: 'Through a pilot study (Phase 3, addressing RQ3), we have demonstrated the tool's effectiveness.'"

    The tool's intervention is the static value/topic list (Sec 5.1). The pilot outcome used to claim effectiveness is participants' agreement that 'the tool helped me to extract values that I would not have thought about without using it' (Table 6). Because every participant was shown that list and no control/unaided condition exists, this agreement is a restatement of having been exposed to the list; any checklist would elicit the same response. The Sec 7 conclusion that the pilot 'demonstrated the tool's effectiveness' therefore reduces by construction to 'participants recognised values from a displayed menu.' This does not validate the tool beyond the list, yet it is the sole support for RQ3/contribution 3.

full rationale

Phases 1-2 are not circular: the value taxonomy is grounded in a PRISMA scoping review of 43 external papers, and the focus-group experts (recruited externally) independently performed scenario analysis in Activity 1 and made substantive changes to the initial list (e.g., honour to dignity, empowerment split into agency/autonomy, equity replacing equality). The paper's self-citations ([87], [88], [89]) are used for methodology and SUS administration, not to justify the value framework, so no self-citation load-bearing issue arises. The circularity is confined to the Phase 3 evaluation: the effectiveness claim for the HRI Value Compass rests on a Likert item that restates the tool's mechanism (displaying the value list), with no control condition or objective outcome. The acknowledged recruitment via professional connections (Sec 5.4) adds demand-characteristic risk, but the structural issue is that the outcome measure is definitionally aligned with the intervention. Hence the central 'demonstrated effectiveness' claim is partially circular, while the taxonomy itself remains independently supported; score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

There are no fitted numerical parameters; the central claim rests on qualitative methodological assumptions. The axioms above are the main unverified premises on which the value list and tool evaluation depend.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The PRISMA search query and exclusion criteria recover a representative sample of value discussions in HRI.
    Phase 1 restricts to records containing 'social' plus 'robot' plus one of value/ethic/moral/deont plus context terms, ending with 43 papers; the authors note the corpus is Western-centric and may miss relevant topics (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption Six technology ethics and philosophy experts can serve as valid arbiters of the comprehensive set of HRI values.
    Only six Western European experts participated in two focus groups; the paper acknowledges their views may differ from end users such as children, parents, and caregivers (Section 4.4).
  • domain assumption Thematic analysis by two reviewers without reported inter-rater reliability yields stable value categories.
    Section 3.1.4 describes a six-step thematic analysis but reports no reliability statistics; qualitative coding is subjective.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-reported ratings in the Phase 3 pilot measure the tool's effectiveness at eliciting values.
    The evaluation (Section 5.3, Table 6) relies on SUS, NASA-TLX, and Likert items with no control condition or objective ground truth; this assumption is specific to this paper's evaluation design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Concerns and Values in Human-Robot Interactions: A Focus on Social Robotics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQK34MQZ

@misc{pith2026250105628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Concerns and Values in Human-Robot Interactions: A Focus on Social Robotics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQK34MQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05628}
}
read the original abstract

Robots, as AI with physical instantiation, inhabit our social and physical world, where their actions have both social and physical consequences, posing challenges for researchers when designing social robots. This study starts with a scoping review to identify discussions and potential concerns arising from interactions with robotic systems in the context of healthcare, education, and private homes. Two focus groups of technology ethics experts then validated a comprehensive list of key topics and values in human-robot interaction (HRI) literature in these contexts. These insights were integrated into the HRI Value Compass web tool, to help HRI researchers identify these values in robot design. The tool was evaluated in a pilot study. This work benefits the HRI community by highlighting key concerns in human-robot interactions and providing an instrument to help researchers design robots that align with human values, ensuring future robotic systems adhere to these values in social applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05628 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The research questions (left), the design process (centre), and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PRISMA framework flow diagram for the scoping review. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. On the left: distribution of the publication years of the selected papers; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Miro board screenshot of activity 3 in which participants were asked [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Final topics and values, with positive and negative valences. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Screenshots of the HRI-Value Compass online tool of Steps 1 and 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Screenshots of the HRI-Value Compass online tool of the reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: HRI Value Compass paper-version for eliciting values and ethical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: HRI Value Compass paper-version for eliciting values and ethical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: HRI Value Compass paper-version for eliciting values and ethical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learning to Evaluate Autonomous Behaviour in Human-Robot Interaction

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A neural behavior classifier trained on teleoperated joint trajectories is proposed and tested as an offline meta-evaluator for imitation learning policies in human-robot interaction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA

    2006.HRI ’06: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction(Salt Lake City, Utah, USA). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA

    2006

  2. [2]

    Maria Isabel Aldinhas Ferreira and Jo˜ ao Silva Sequeira. 2017. Robots in ageing societies. InA World with Robots: International Conference on Robot Ethics: ICRE 2015. Springer, 217–223

    2017

  3. [3]

    Farshid Amirabdollahian, Rieks op den Akker, Sandra Bedaf, Richard Bormann, Heather Draper, Vanessa Evers, Jorge Gallego P´ erez, Gert Jan Gelderblom, Carolina Gutierrez Ruiz, David Hewson, et al. 2013. Assistive technology design and development for acceptable robotics companions for ageing years.Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics4, 2 (2013), 94–112

    2013

  4. [4]

    Farshid Amirabdollahian, Rieks Op den Akker, Sandra Bedaf, Richard Bormann, Heather Draper, Vanessa Evers, Gert Jan Gelderblom, Carolina Gutierrez Ruiz, David Hewson, Ninghang Hu, et al

  5. [5]

    Minja Axelsson, Micol Spitale, and Hatice Gunes. 2024. Robots as mental well-being coaches: Design and ethical recommendations.ACM Transac- tions on Human-Robot Interaction13, 2 (2024), 1–55

    2024

  6. [6]

    Stefanie Baisch and Thorsten Kolling. 2023. Elders’ expectations and experiences with a companion-type social robot: Ethical implications. In Social Robots in Social Institutions. IOS Press, 60–69

    2023

  7. [7]

    2024.Human-robot interaction: An introduction

    Christoph Bartneck, Tony Belpaeme, Friederike Eyssel, Takayuki Kanda, Merel Keijsers, and Selma ˇSabanovi´ c. 2024.Human-robot interaction: An introduction. Cambridge University Press

    2024

  8. [8]

    Linda Battistuzzi, Antonio Sgorbissa, Chris Papadopoulos, Irena Pa- padopoulos, and Christina Koulouglioti. 2018. Embedding ethics in the design of culturally competent socially assistive robots. In2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 1996–2001

    2018

Show all 120 references
  1. [9]

    Tom L Beauchamp. 2003. Methods and principles in biomedical ethics. Journal of Medical ethics29, 5 (2003), 269–274. 32

    2003

  2. [10]

    Fabiane Barreto Vavassori Benitti. 2012. Exploring the educational poten- tial of robotics in schools: A systematic review.Computers & Education 58, 3 (2012), 978–988

    2012

  3. [11]

    2012.Thematic analysis.American Psychological Association

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012.Thematic analysis.American Psychological Association

    2012

  4. [12]

    2016.Robots and Robotic Devices

    Institution British Standards. 2016.Robots and Robotic Devices. Guide to the Ethical Design and Application of Robots and Robotic Systems. B S I Standards, London

    2016

  5. [13]

    Joost Broekens, Marcel Heerink, Henk Rosendal, et al. 2009. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review.Gerontechnology8, 2 (2009), 94– 103

    2009

  6. [14]

    John Brooke. 2013. SUS: a retrospective.Journal of usability studies8, 2 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Martina ˇCai´ c, Gaby Odekerken-Schr¨ oder, and Dominik Mahr. 2018. Ser- vice robots: value co-creation and co-destruction in elderly care networks. Journal of Service Management29, 2 (2018), 178–205

    2018

  8. [16]

    Christopher James Calo, Nicholas Hunt-Bull, Lundy Lewis, and Ted Met- zler. 2011. Ethical implications of using the paro robot, with a focus on dementia patient care. InWorkshops at the twenty-fifth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

    2011

  9. [17]

    Massimiliano L Cappuccio, Eduardo B Sandoval, Omar Mubin, Moham- mad Obaid, and Mari Velonaki. 2021. Can robots make us better humans? Virtuous robotics and the good life with artificial agents.International Journal of Social Robotics13 (2021), 7–22

    2021

  10. [18]

    Felix Carros, Tobias St¨ orzinger, Anne Wierling, Adrian Preussner, and Peter Tolmie. 2022. Ethical, Legal & Participatory Concerns in the De- velopment of Human-Robot Interaction: Lessons from Eight Research Projects with Social Robots in Real-World Scenarios.i-com21, 2 (2022...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Fabio Catania, Micol Spitale, and Franca Garzotto. 2023. Conversational agents in therapeutic interventions for neurodevelopmental disorders: a survey.Comput. Surveys55, 10 (2023), 1–34

    2023

  12. [20]

    EunJeong Cheon and Norman Makoto Su. 2016. Integrating roboticist values into a Value Sensitive Design framework for humanoid robots. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Inter- action (HRI). IEEE, 375–382

    2016

  13. [21]

    Karen S Cook and Karen A Hegtvedt. 1983. Distributive justice, equity, and equality.Annual review of sociology9, 1 (1983), 217–241

    1983

  14. [22]

    2020.Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020.Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press. 33

    2020

  15. [23]

    Kathrin Cresswell, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, and Aziz Sheikh. 2018. Health care robotics: qualitative exploration of key challenges and future directions.Journal of medical Internet research20, 7 (2018), e10410

    2018

  16. [24]

    Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2007. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction.Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: Biological sciences362, 1480 (2007), 679–704

    2007

  17. [25]

    Maartje MA de Graaf. 2016. An ethical evaluation of human–robot rela- tionships.International journal of social robotics8 (2016), 589–598

    2016

  18. [26]

    Joshua J Diehl, Lauren M Schmitt, Michael Villano, and Charles R Crow- ell. 2012. The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A critical review.Research in autism spectrum disorders6, 1 (2012), 249–262

    2012

  19. [27]

    Lynn Dombrowski, Ellie Harmon, and Sarah Fox. 2016. Social justice- oriented interaction design: Outlining key design strategies and commit- ments. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Inter- active Systems. 656–671

    2016

  20. [28]

    Heather Draper and Tom Sorell. 2017. Ethical values and social care robots for older people: an international qualitative study.Ethics and Information Technology19, 1 (2017), 49–68

    2017

  21. [29]

    Nadine Andrea Felber, F´ elix Pageau, Athena McLean, and Tenzin Wangmo. 2022. The concept of social dignity as a yardstick to delimit ethical use of robotic assistance in the care of older persons.Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy(2022), 1–12

    2022

  22. [30]

    Rachel L Finn, David Wright, and Michael Friedewald. 2013. Seven types of privacy.European data protection: coming of age(2013), 3–32

    2013

  23. [31]

    Amelia Fiske, Peter Henningsen, and Alena Buyx. 2019. Your robot ther- apist will see you now: ethical implications of embodied artificial intelli- gence in psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy.Journal of medical Internet research21, 5 (2019), e13216

    2019

  24. [32]

    Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, Christoph Lutz, and Aurelia Tam` o-Larrieux

  25. [33]

    Michel Foucault. 1977. Discipline and punish (Alan Sheridan, trans.).New York: Pantheon(1977)

    1977

  26. [34]

    Marina Fridin. 2014. Kindergarten social assistive robot: First meeting and ethical issues.Computers in Human Behavior30 (2014), 262–272

    2014

  27. [35]

    ´Alvaro Garc ´ ıa-Soler, David Facal, Unai D ´ ıaz-Orueta, Lucia Pigini, Lorenzo Blasi, and Renxi Qiu. 2018. Inclusion of service robots in the daily lives of frail older users: a step-by-step definition procedure on users’ requirements.Archives of gerontology and geriatrics74...

    2018

  28. [36]

    Benjamin Gardner, Phillippa Lally, and Amanda L Rebar. 2020. Does habit weaken the relationship between intention and behaviour? Revis- iting the habit-intention interaction hypothesis.Social and Personality Psychology Compass14, 8 (2020), e12553

    2020

  29. [37]

    Joshua A Gomer and Christopher C Pagano. 2011. NASA Task Load In- dex for Human-Robot Interaction Workload Measurement.ITEA Journal of Test & Evaluation32, 2 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Goodman, A

    J. Goodman, A. Dickinson, and A. Syme. 2004. Gathering Requirements for Mobile Devices Using Focus Groups with Older People. InDesigning a More Inclusive World, Simeon Keates, John Clarkson, Patrick Langdon, and Peter Robinson (Eds.). Springer London, London, 81–90

    2004

  31. [39]

    Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, Sena Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, Sean P Wojcik, and Peter H Ditto. 2013. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. InAdvances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 47. Elsevier, 55–130

    2013

  32. [40]

    Thilo Hagendorff. 2020. The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guide- lines.Minds and machines30, 1 (2020), 99–120

    2020

  33. [41]

    Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Decon- structing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements.Proceedings of the ACM on human- computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–25

    2019

  34. [42]

    Monique Hennink and Bonnie N Kaiser. 2022. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests.Social science & medicine292 (2022), 114523

    2022

  35. [43]

    1997.Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems

    Karen Holtzblatt and Hugh Beyer. 1997.Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Elsevier

    1997

  36. [44]

    Andreas Huber, Astrid Weiss, and Marjo Rauhala. 2016. The ethi- cal risk of attachment how to identify, investigate and predict poten- tial ethical risks in the development of social companion robots. In2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HR...

    2016

  37. [45]

    L Hung, J Mann, J Perry, A Berndt, and J Wong. [n. d.]. Technolog- ical risks and ethical implications of using robots in long-term care 9, 205566832211069 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Marcello Ienca, Fabrice Jotterand, Constantin Vic˘ a, and Bernice Elger

  39. [47]

    Hyunggu Jung, Woosuk Seo, Seokwoo Song, and Sungmin Na. 2023. To- ward Value Scenario Generation Through Large Language Models. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 212–220. 35

    2023

  40. [48]

    Yugyeong Jung, Gyuwon Jung, Sooyeon Jeong, Chaewon Kim, Woontack Woo, Hwajung Hong, and Uichin Lee. 2023. ” Enjoy, but Moderately!”: Designing a Social Companion Robot for Social Engagement and Behavior Moderation in Solitary Drinking Context.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Co...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Maria Kyrarini, Fotios Lygerakis, Akilesh Rajavenkatanarayanan, Chris- tos Sevastopoulos, Harish Ram Nambiappan, Kodur Krishna Chaitanya, Ashwin Ramesh Babu, Joanne Mathew, and Fillia Makedon. 2021. A survey of robots in healthcare.Technologies9, 1 (2021), 8

    2021

  42. [50]

    Alexis Lambert, Nahal Norouzi, Gerd Bruder, and Gregory Welch. 2020. A systematic review of ten years of research on human interaction with social robots.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction36, 19 (2020), 1804–1817

    2020

  43. [51]

    Alex Leveringhaus. 2018. Developing robots: The need for an ethical framework.European View17, 1 (2018), 37–43

    2018

  44. [52]

    Huao Li, Stephanie Milani, Vigneshram Krishnamoorthy, Michael Lewis, and Katia Sycara. 2019. Perceptions of domestic robots’ normative be- havior across cultures. InProceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 345–351

    2019

  45. [53]

    Tendai Makasi, Alireza Nili, Kevin Desouza, and Mary Tate. 2020. Chatbot-Mediated Public Service Delivery: A Public Service Value-Based Framework.First Monday(Nov. 2020). doi:10.5210/fm.v25i12.10598

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    Laura Malinverni, Cristina Valero, Marie Monique Schaper, and Is- abel Garcia de la Cruz. 2021. Educational robotics as a boundary object: Towards a research agenda.International Journal of Child-Computer In- teraction29 (2021), 100305

    2021

  47. [55]

    Bertram F Malle, Eric Rosen, Vivienne B Chi, Matthew Berg, and Peter Haas. 2020. A general methodology for teaching norms to social robots. In2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Inter- active Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 1395–1402

    2020

  48. [56]

    Arne Manzeschke. 2015. MEESTAR: ein Modell angewandter Ethik im Bereich assistiver Technologien.Technisierung des Alltags. Beitrag f¨ ur ein gutes Leben(2015), 263–283

    2015

  49. [57]

    Maristella Matera, Francesca Rizzo, and Giovanni Toffetti Carughi. 2006. Web usability: Principles and evaluation methods.Web engineering (2006), 143–180

    2006

  50. [58]

    Michael Mintrom, Shanti Sumartojo, Dana Kuli´ c, Leimin Tian, Pamela Carreno-Medrano, and Aimee Allen. 2022. Robots in public spaces: impli- cations for policy design.Policy design and practice5, 2 (2022), 123–139

    2022

  51. [59]

    Catrin Misselhorn, Ulrike Pompe, and Mog Stapleton. 2013. Ethical con- siderations regarding the use of social robots in the fourth age.GeroPsych (2013). 36

    2013

  52. [60]

    Omar Mubin, Catherine J Stevens, Suleman Shahid, Abdullah Al Mah- mud, and Jian-Jie Dong. 2013. A review of the applicability of robots in education.Journal of Technology in Education and Learning1, 209-0015 (2013), 13

    2013

  53. [61]

    Lisa P Nathan, Predrag V Klasnja, and Batya Friedman. 2007. Value scenarios: a technique for envisioning systemic effects of new technologies. InCHI’07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 2585–2590

    2007

  54. [62]

    Lennart Nordenfelt. 2004. The varieties of dignity.Health care analysis 12 (2004), 69–81

    2004

  55. [63]

    Anastasia K Ostrowski, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. 2022. Mixed-method long-term robot usage: Older adults’ lived experience of social robots. In2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 33–42

    2022

  56. [64]

    Anastasia K Ostrowski, Raechel Walker, Madhurima Das, Maria Yang, Cynthia Breazea, Hae Won Park, and Aditi Verma. 2022. Ethics, equity, & justice in human-robot interaction: A review and future directions. In 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interac- ...

    2022

  57. [65]

    Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C Hoffmann, Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jen- nifer M Tetzlaff, Elie A Akl, Sue E Brennan, et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj372 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Alina Pommeranz, Pascal Wiggers, Willem-Paul Brinkman, and Catholijn M Jonker. 2012. Social acceptance of negotiation support sys- tems: scenario-based exploration with focus groups and online survey. Cognition, Technology & Work14, 4 (2012), 299–317

    2012

  59. [67]

    Adam Poulsen, Oliver K Burmeister, and David Tien. 2018. Care Robot Transparency Isn’t Enough for Trust. In2018 IEEE Region Ten Sympo- sium (Tensymp). IEEE, 293–297

    2018

  60. [68]

    Adam Poulsen, Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, Oliver K Burmeister, et al. 2020. Cybersecurity, value sensing robots for LGBTIQ+ elderly, and the need for revised codes of conduct.Australasian Journal of Information Systems 24 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Tony J Prescott and Julie M Robillard. 2021. Are friends electric? The benefits and risks of human-robot relationships.Iscience24, 1 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Carina Prunkl. 2022. Human autonomy in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature Machine Intelligence4, 2 (2022), 99–101

    2022

  63. [71]

    M Elizabeth Register and JoAnne Herman. 2010. Quality of life revisited: the concept of connectedness in older adults.Advances in Nursing Science 33, 1 (2010), 53–63. 37

    2010

  64. [72]

    Wessel Reijers, Kevin Koidl, David Lewis, Harshvardhan J Pandit, and Bert Gordijn. 2018. Discussing ethical impacts in research and innova- tion: The ethics canvas. InThis Changes Everything–ICT and Climate Change: What Can We Do? 13th IFIP TC 9 International Conference on Hum...

    2018

  65. [73]

    Andres Rosero. 2023. Using Justifications to Mitigate Loss in Human Trust when Robots Perform Norm-Violating and Deceptive Behaviors. In Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction. 766–768

    2023

  66. [74]

    Susana Rubio, Eva D ´ ıaz, Jes´ us Mart ´ ın, and Jos´ e M Puente. 2004. Evalua- tion of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SW AT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods.Applied psychology53, 1 (2004), 61–86

    2004

  67. [75]

    Calvo, and Celine Mougenot

    Malak Sadek, Rafael A. Calvo, and Celine Mougenot. 2023. The Value- Sensitive Conversational Agent Co-Design Framework

    2023

  68. [76]

    2016.Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research

    Jeff Sauro and James R Lewis. 2016.Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research. Morgan Kaufmann

    2016

  69. [77]

    1982.Contractualism and utilitarianism

    Thomas M Scanlon. 1982.Contractualism and utilitarianism. Utilitarian- ism and Beyond/Cambridge University Press

    1982

  70. [78]

    2000.What we owe to each other

    Thomas M Scanlon. 2000.What we owe to each other. Harvard University Press

    2000

  71. [79]

    Shalom Schwartz. 2012. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values.Online Readings in Psychology and Culture2, 1 (Dec. 2012). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1116

    2012

  72. [80]

    Shalom H. Schwartz, Jan Cieciuch, Michele Vecchione, Eldad Davidov, Ronald Fischer, Constanze Beierlein, Alice Ramos, Markku Verkasalo, Jan-Erik L¨ onnqvist, Kursad Demirutku, Ozlem Dirilen-Gumus, and Mark Konty. 2012. Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values.Journal of ...

    2012

  73. [81]

    A Sharkey and N Sharkey. 2010. Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly: Dystopia or optimism. InIn Proc. of The Second Int’l Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction at AISB, Vol. 2010

    2010

  74. [82]

    Amanda Sharkey and Noel Sharkey. 2012. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly.Ethics and information technology14 (2012), 27–40

    2012

  75. [83]

    Amanda JC Sharkey. 2016. Should we welcome robot teachers?Ethics and Information Technology18 (2016), 283–297

    2016

  76. [84]

    Matthijs Smakman, Brechtje Jansen, Jordi Leunen, and Elly Konijn. 2020. Acceptable social robots in education: A value sensitive parent perspec- tive. InINTED2020 Proceedings. IATED, 7946–7953. 38

    2020

  77. [85]

    Matthijs Smakman, Paul Vogt, and Elly A Konijn. 2021. Moral consid- erations on social robots in education: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Computers & Education174 (2021), 104317

    2021

  78. [86]

    Antonio Soares, Nuno Pi¸ carra, Jean-Christophe Giger, Raquel Oliveira, and Patr ´ ıcia Arriaga. 2023. Ethics 4.0: Ethical dilemmas in healthcare mediated by social robots.International Journal of Social Robotics15, 5 (2023), 807–823

    2023

  79. [87]

    Micol Spitale, Minja Axelsson, and Hatice Gunes. 2024. Appropriateness of LLM-equipped Robotic Well-being Coach Language in the Workplace: A Qualitative Evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14935(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Micol Spitale, Chris Birmingham, R Michael Swan, and Maja J Matari´ c

  81. [89]

    Micol Spitale, Rebecca Stower, Elmira Yadollahi, Maria Teresa Parreira, Nida Itrat Abbasi, Iolanda Leite, and Hatice Gunes. 2023. A Systematic Review on Reproducibility in Child-Robot Interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01822(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Rebecca Stower, Maria Teresa Parreira, Elmira Yadollahi, Iolanda Leite, Hatice Gunes, et al. 2024. HRI Wasn’t Built In a Day: A Call To Action For Responsible HRI Research. (2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    Jackie Street, Helen Barrie, Jaklin Eliott, Lucy Carolan, Fidelma Mc- Corry, Andreas Cebulla, Lyn Phillipson, Kathleen Prokopovich, Scott Hanson-Easey, Teresa Burgess, et al. 2022. Older adults’ perspectives of smart technologies to support aging at home: Insights from five wo...

    2022

  84. [92]

    Ja-Young Sung, Rebecca E Grinter, Henrik I Christensen, and Lan Guo

  85. [93]

    Andrea C Tricco, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, Kelly K O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun, Danielle Levac, David Moher, Micah DJ Peters, Tanya Hors- ley, Laura Weeks, et al. 2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation.Annals of internal medicine 169...

    2018

  86. [94]

    Turja Tuuli and Parviainen Jaana. 2020. The use of affective care robots calls forth value-based consideration. In2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 950–955

    2020

  87. [95]

    Gijs Van Ewijk, Matthijs Smakman, and Elly A Konijn. 2020. Teachers’ perspectives on social robots in education: an exploratory case study. In Proceedings of the interaction design and children conference. 273–280. 39

    2020

  88. [96]

    Aimee Van Wynsberghe. 2013. A method for integrating ethics into the design of robots.Industrial Robot: An International Journal40, 5 (2013), 433–440

    2013

  89. [97]

    Tijs Vandemeulebroucke, Bernadette Dierckx de Casterl´ e, Laura Welber- gen, Michiel Massart, and Chris Gastmans. 2020. The ethics of socially assistive robots in aged care. A focus group study with older adults in Flanders, Belgium.The Journals of Gerontology: Series B75, 9 (...

    2020

  90. [98]

    Dieter Vanderelst and Jurgen Willems. 2020. Can we agree on what robots should be allowed to do? An exercise in rule selection for ethical care robots.International Journal of Social Robotics12, 5 (2020), 1093–1102

    2020

  91. [99]

    Gianmarco Veruggio. 2006. The EURON roboethics roadmap. In2006 6th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots. IEEE, 612–617

    2006

  92. [100]

    Anna-Lisa Vollmer, Robin Read, Dries Trippas, and Tony Belpaeme. 2018. Children conform, adults resist: A robot group induced peer pressure on normative social conformity.Science robotics3, 21 (2018), eaat7111

    2018

  93. [101]

    Kelly B Wagman and Lisa Parks. 2021. Beyond the command: feminist STS research and critical issues for the design of social machines.Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–20

    2021

  94. [102]

    Mika Westerlund. 2020. An ethical framework for smart robots.Technol- ogy Innovation Management Review10, 1 (2020)

    2020

  95. [103]

    Billy Wheeler. 2023. Confucianism and the Ethics of Social Robots in Eldercare.Social Robots in Social Institutions: Proceedings of Robophi- losophy 2022366 (2023), 276

    2023

  96. [104]

    2013.The manipulation of choice: Ethics and libertarian paternalism

    Mark White. 2013.The manipulation of choice: Ethics and libertarian paternalism. Springer

    2013

  97. [105]

    Katie Winkle and Natasha Mulvihill. 2024. Anticipating the Use of Robots in Domestic Abuse: A Typology of Robot Facilitated Abuse to Support Risk Assessment and Mitigation in Human-Robot Interaction. InProceed- ings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot ...

    2024

  98. [106]

    Ricarda Wullenkord and Friederike Eyssel. 2020. Societal and ethical issues in HRI.Current Robotics Reports1, 3 (2020), 85–96

    2020

  99. [107]

    Lorraine KC Yeung, Cecilia SY Tam, Sam SS Lau, and Mandy M Ko

  100. [114]

    Propose a new system to solve the challenges of the user based on the provided persona and scenario, which should be more than 1,000 characters

  101. [115]

    Write the five key elements of the value scenario to apply to the result of the value scenario

  102. [116]

    Use the following format:

    Write a value scenario that reflects the five key elements including its darker consequences with a title for the proposed system, which should be more than 10,000 characters. Use the following format:

  103. [117]

    Proposed new system: <proposed system description>

  104. [118]

    Five key elements: <write the five key elements to apply to the value scenario>

  105. [119]

    Good morning, HomeAssist

    Value scenario: <a value scenario reflecting the five key elements> Make sure that the value scenario should be more than 10,000 characters. Make sure to reflect the five key factors into the value scenario. Value scenario: ’’’An extension of scenario-based design which can su...

  106. [120]

    level of pa- ternalism

    (i.e., using the values identified in our scoping review as main themes and the topics as main codes), we summarise the focus group findings as follows. In bold we highlight the values that emerged, and in italic the corresponding topics, D.1 Activity 1: scenario analysis Part...

  107. [2008]

    InProceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction

    Housewives or technophiles? Understanding domestic robot owners. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction. 129–136

  108. [2013]

    In2013 6th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI)

    Accompany: Acceptable robotiCs COMPanions for AgeiNG Years—Multidimensional aspects of human-system interactions. In2013 6th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI). IEEE, 570–577

  109. [2016]

    Social and assistive robotics in dementia care: ethical recommenda- tions for research and practice.International Journal of Social Robotics 8 (2016), 565–573

    2016

  110. [2020]

    Gathering expert opinions for social robots’ ethical, legal, and soci- etal concerns: Findings from four international workshops.International Journal of Social Robotics12, 2 (2020), 441–458

    2020

  111. [2021]

    In2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Composing harmoni: An open-source tool for human and robot modular open interaction. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 3322–3329

  112. [2023]

    value scenario

    Living with AI personal assistant: an ethical appraisal.AI & SOCIETY(2023), 1–16. 40 A Prompting for value scenarios generation The following is the prompt used for generating value scenarios, as in [47]. Now, you are a UX researcher tasked with understanding and identifying t...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.