Human-robot dynamics: a psychological insight into the ethics of social robotics

• Date: 09 December 2024
• Pages: 101-141
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-01-2024-0034
• Published date: 09 December 2024
• Subject Matter: Economics,Social economics
• Author: Auxane Boch,Bethany Rhea Thomas

Human-robot dynamics:

a psychological insight into the

ethics of social robotics

Auxane Boch

Institute for Ethics in AI, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and

Bethany Rhea Thomas

Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

Abstract

Purpose –Social robotics is a rapidly growing application of artif‌icial intelligence (AI) in society,

encompassing an expandingrange of applications. This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing integration of

psychology into social roboticsethics by reviewing current theories and empirical f‌indings relatedto human–

robot interaction(HRI) and addressing critical points of contentionwithin the ethics discourse.

Design/methodology/approach –The authors will explore the factorsinf‌luencing the acceptance of social

robots, explore the developmentof relationships between humans and robots and delve into three prominent

controversies:deception, dehumanisation and violence.

Findings –The authors f‌irst propose design factors allowing for a positive interaction with the robot, and

further discuss precise dimensions to evaluate when designing a social robot to ensure ethical design

technology, building on the four ethical principles for trustworthy AI. The f‌inal section of this paper will

outline and offerexplicit recommendations for future research endeavours.

Originality/value –This paper provides originality and value to the f‌ield of social robotics ethics by

integrating psychology into the ethical discourse and offering a comprehensive understanding of HRI. It

introducesthree ethical dimensions and provides recommendationsfor implementing them, contributingto the

developmentof ethical design in social robots and trustworthy AI.

Keywords Psychology, Ethics, Social robots

Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction

Social robotics is a rapidly growing application of artif‌icial intelligence (AI) in society,

encompassing an expandingrange of applications. With its inherent socialnature, integrating

psychology into the multidisciplinary discussion of social robot ethics becomes an evident

avenue of research.

Early def‌initions described social robots as machines capable of acceptable interaction

with humans and other robots, effectivelyconveying intentions and collaborating to achieve

goals (Duffy et al., 1999). The applications and goals of social robots are diverse, varying

© Auxane Boch and Bethany Rhea Thomas. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is

published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce,

distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-

commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms

of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

International

Journal of Ethics

and Systems

101

Received31 January 2024

Revised22 August 2024

3O ctober 2024

Accepted10 November 2024

InternationalJournal of Ethics and

Systems

Vol.41 No. 1, 2025

pp. 101-141

EmeraldPublishing Limited

2514-9369

DOI 10.1108/IJOES-01-2024-0034

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9369.htm

across specif‌ic domains. Extensive literature has explored and categorised these use cases

based on their intended purposes.

As examined by Lambert et al. (2020) and Naneva et al. (2020), companionrobots focus

on building relationships with owners and facilitating sustained social interaction while

providing domestic assistance.These robots align with the goal of fostering social bonds and

promoting independence among their end users. Service robots, exemplif‌ied by bellhop

prototypes in the hospitality industry, as studied by Boch et al. (2021) and Pinillos et al.

(2016), play various roles with a focus on economic productivity objectives. Care robots

target patients and health-care providers through tasks that enhance health-care delivery

(Naneva et al., 2020) or provide customised assistance to vulnerable groups (Vallor, 2011).

Some initiatives prioritise paediatric care, emphasising welfare goals (Naneva et al., 2020).

Educational robots, explored by Angel-Fernandez and Vincze (2018) and Naneva et al.

(2020), enhance learning experiences by supporting instruction and engaging learners,

aligning with instructional technology objectives. Sex robots aim to improve intimacy,

although this specif‌ic domain raises signif‌icant ethical complexities (Boch et al., 2021;

Fosch-Villarongaand Poulsen, 2020;Richardson, 2016). Furthermore, socialinteraction and

entertainment robots, as examined by Naneva et al. (2020) and Lambert et al. (2020),

provide valuable insights into fundamental human–robot dynamics despite lacking specif‌ic

purposes.

These diverse applications ref‌lect evolving technological, economic and socialpriorities.

By examining the underlying factorsand dynamics of the relationship between humans and

social robots froma psychological perspective, we can better understandthe tension points in

ethical design for fosteringpositive human–robot interactions (HRI) and relationships.

The ethical design of social robots is a complex and multifaceted endeavour that draws

upon insights from various f‌ields, including psychology, human–computer interaction and

ethics. In recent years, psychologistshave played a crucial role in shaping the ethical design

of social robots throughempirical research and the development of conceptual frameworks.

Psychology plays a crucial role in the ethicaldesign of social robots by investigating and

informing the concept of HRI. Studies have shown that humans tend to anthropomorphise

robots, attributing human-likequalities to them, which has implications for designing social

robots that evoke emotional attachments (Smith et al., 2021). Moral psychology has also

contributed to developing ethical frameworks. For example, Malle’s model integrates

principles from moral psychology and HRI to guide ethical robotbehaviours (Malle, 2016).

In addition, psychology helps underpin the psychological mechanisms underlying human

behaviour and decision-making, informing the design of social robots. For instance,

considering users’cognitive biases and heuristics is essential, as these cognitive processes

can shape how individuals perceive and respond to robotic behaviour (Biswas and Murray,

2014).

In conclusion, the ethical designof social robots draws upon a rich body of psychological

research and theoretical frameworks. Psychologists have contributed signif‌icantly to

developing ethical guidelines and design principles for social robots by understanding how

humans perceive, interact withand are inf‌luenced by robots. As the f‌ield continues to evolve,

psychologists willundoubtedly play a central role in shaping the future of ethicalsocial robot

design.

This paper seeks to contribute to the ongoing integration of psychology into social

robotics ethics. We aim to accomplish this by reviewing current theories and empirical

f‌indings related to HRI and addressing critical points of contention within the ethics

discourse. This paper is structured to provide a comprehensive exploration of the ethical

design of social robots through the lens of psychological insights. The discussion begins by

IJOES

41,1

102

examining the moderating factors that inf‌luence the acceptance of social robots, including

cultural, appearance, engagement, behavioural and personalisationfactors in Section 2. The

paper then delves into the development of human–robot relationships, exploring key

psychological theories in Section 3. Section 4 addresses potential consequences and ethical

controversies associated with social robotics, focusing on deception, manipulation,

dehumanisation and violence.Finally, in Section 5 and 6, the paper concludes with practical

recommendations for the ethical design of social robots, considering the discussed

psychological factorsand ethical dimensions, and offers a roadmap forfuture research in this

interdisciplinaryf‌ield.

2. Moderating factors of acceptance

In this section, we delve into the factors inf‌luencing the acceptance of socialrobots, aiming

to understand humans’overall perceptions and receptiveness towards these machines,

building on psychology’s teachings. Accepting a technology implies having a positive

expectation and experience, which aligns with the ethical design objectives. Achieving

acceptance involves understanding the various factors inf‌luencing individuals’attitudes

towards robots and designing robots that meet their expectations and needs. By considering

cultural factors, appearance factors, engagement factors, behavioural factors and

personalisation, designerscan create social robots that foster positive interactions and adhere

to ethical principles of promotinguser well-being and satisfaction.

2.1 General attitudes towards robots

Early studies provide insights into general public attitudes towards robots. According to

Dautenhahn (2007), robots tended to be primarily viewed as valuable tools to assist with

household tasks rather than as social companions. This perception of robots as appliancesor

machines aligned with their initial introduction for industrial and service applications rather

than social interaction. However, more recent work has found that attitudes may depend on

direct experience with robots. Naneva et al. (2020) reviewed survey responses regarding

trust, anxiety and willingness to use robots. Overall, participants reported neutral levels of

trust and anxiety towards robots –neither explicitly trusting nor distrusting robots and

experiencing reasonably moderate anxiety. This suggests an open but cautious baseline

attitude. However, interestingly, the review found some inf‌luence of demographic factors.

Gender appeared to impact trustsomewhat, with samples including more female participants

reporting higher levels of trust in robots compared to more male-dominated samples.

Furthermore, age did not signif‌icantly inf‌luence reported attitudes contrary to some

expectations.

Building on this knowledge,studies have investigated how direct engagement with robots

shapes attitudes positively. Li et al. (2010) observed strongcorrelations between interaction

factors like likability, trust and satisfaction with a given robot. This implies that fostering

active user participation and developing more social interaction tasks could help improve

general perceptions and, in-turn attitudestowards robots. Similarly, Leite et al. (2013) found

that increasing interactiontime and frequency through varied applications may heighten user

engagement with robots.

In summary,while initial public perceptions of robots alignedwith their industrial origins,

general baseline attitudes today appear cautiously open but neutral regarding trust and

anxiety.Demographic factors like gender may inf‌luence views to a degree. Most importantly,

direct experience appears instrumental in developing more positive regard, implying that

engineering socialengagement can help optimise HRI outcomes.

International

Journal of Ethics

and Systems

103