Bots against Bias: Critical Next Steps for Human-Robot Interaction

Katie Seaborn

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 102 references

Bots against Bias: Critical Next Steps for Human-Robot Interaction

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This chapter argues that bias is not just a human trait but a machine one: humanoid robots are shaped by our biases and trigger our biases, making bias in human-robot interaction a design problem with legal and ethical stakes.

desk verdict A transparent, well-scoped review chapter that frames bias in HRI as a two-track problem; the main caveat is an asserted rather than established social-transfer premise, but the paper acknowledges this and is worth serious engagement. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12542 v1 pith:NE7AQL2E submitted 2024-12-17 cs.RO cs.AIcs.HC

Katie Seaborn This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.HC

keywords human-robotinteractionsocialrobotsbiasartificialintelligencedesignethicscognitivealgorithmicstereotyping

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 chapter argues that bias is a natural cognitive function that extends to machines: humanoid, AI-enabled, expressive robots are created in the shape of our biases, and they in turn activate the same mental models, heuristics, and stereotypes we use on people. The author develops two parallel tracks for human-robot interaction: designing robots in bias-conscious ways, and designing robots that help people notice, resist, or productively use their own biases. The central claim is that because robots are our creations, bias is not a fixed fate but an actionable design problem spanning robot bodies, voices, algorithms, behaviors, and the teams that build them. A sympathetic reader would care because this reframing turns a diffuse worry about bias into a concrete agenda for research, design, law, and ethics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the transfer of human cognitive bias to robots: people apply the same mental models, heuristics, and stereotypes to humanlike robots that they apply to people, and those models are embedded in robot form factors, voices, algorithms, and behaviors. The chapter's organizing device is a two-track structure—robots against bias and against bias in robots—with each track built from curated cases and accompanied by critical next steps for research, social factors, legal factors, and ethical factors. The argument's engine is the claim that bias is a natural, evolved cognitive function that can be intentionally shaped once it is recognized.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment comparing a humanlike robot with a non-humanlike robot on the same bias-eliciting task—such as stereotype priming or conformity to an erroneous suggestion—would test the transfer premise. If the non-humanlike robot fails to elicit the bias but the humanlike robot does, the premise is confirmed; if neither elicits it, the chapter's central assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The chapter's central claim is that bias operates in both directions in human-robot interaction. Human cognitive biases—overconfidence, confirmation bias, anchoring, risk aversion, stereotyping, and other shortcuts—are triggered by robots with humanlike cues, including gender, race, nationality, accent, and age markers. At the same time, robots inherit the biases of their creators through their morphology, voice, algorithms, data sets, and the research practices that produce them. The author gathers case evidence for each direction and derives critical next steps in research, social context, law, and ethics, concluding that bias cannot be eradicated but does not have to be: with awareness, it can be recognized, designed around, and harnessed for prosocial ends.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the same cognitive biases people show toward other people are triggered by humanlike robots in approximately the same way; if robots are often processed as tools rather than social partners, the chapter's two tracks lose much of their force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Robot appearance, voice, nationality cues, and perceived age and gender become design decisions with measurable bias effects, not neutral aesthetic choices.
Robots can be built as tools for human bias resilience: interviewers that reduce misleading influence, companions that model cognitive errors for teachable moments, and trainers that use framing effects to motivate beneficial behavior.
Algorithmic bias in the vision and language models used by social robots is a human problem, so diverse data sets, explainable AI, and intersectional auditing are preconditions for fair robot behavior.
Overtrust in robots is a foreseeable failure mode that design, transparency, and regulation must address, especially for children and other vulnerable users.
The diversity and power structure of robotics teams become direct sources of robot bias, so team composition, citation practices, and leadership sharing are part of the anti-bias agenda.

Reading between the lines

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

The chapter's logic implies a practical audit method: for any social robot, one could systematically vary a single social cue—skin tone, voice pitch, name, national label—and measure stereotype activation, producing a 'bias profile' akin to a transparency report.
A testable extension is to use bias-triggering robots as ethical measurement instruments for implicit bias in children and other populations where human confederates are impractical or ethically fraught.
The two tracks are porous: a robot designed to correct human bias must itself be audited, suggesting that anti-bias work in HRI is necessarily iterative and reflexive rather than a one-time fix.
If the transfer premise holds, robot embodiment could become a controlled variable for studying the boundary conditions of human social cognition, helping to determine which cues matter and in which contexts.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a good review chapter, not a research result. The two-track frame—robots against bias (using robots to correct our biases) and against bias in robots (removing bias from robot design and data)—is genuinely useful for organizing a scattered literature. The curated cases are current, the writing is clear, and the author is unusually upfront about the limits: she calls the selection 'curated,' says she is not comprehensive or prescriptive, and labels many findings early, small-sample, or null. The legal and ethical next steps are provocative but carefully hedged.

What it does well: the chapter is honest about the evidence. It doesn't oversell the robot interviewer study (Bethel et al. has a confound), the n=7 exercise robot study, or the null stereotype-priming result in Ogunyale et al. The Track 2 material on algorithmic and data bias is on firmer ground because it does not require the contested premise that people process robots like people.

The real soft spot is Track 1. The claim that we can shape robots to reduce bias leans on CASA and generalization from human-human bias research, but the boundary conditions—when a robot is treated as a social actor versus a tool—are never specified. The author states this directly ('I propose that it equally applies to robots') and doesn't pretend to have solved it. For an agenda chapter, that is an acceptable scope limitation, not a fatal flaw. The bigger concern is that the evidence base for the 'robots against bias' cases is thin: several key studies are underpowered, confounded, or null. A reader should treat those cases as hypotheses, not findings. The chapter frames them that way, so it earns the benefit of the doubt.

This is a book chapter, so it should not be judged as a novel empirical contribution. As a review and agenda, it deserves serious referee attention: it is well organized, cites the relevant critical/HRI/fairness literature, and gives the field a useful set of open questions. I would accept it and would bring it to a reading group on bias in human-robot interaction.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The chapter (Handbook Ch. 19) argues that bias is a natural human phenomenon that is unavoidably embedded in humanoid social robots, and that HRI research can respond along two tracks: designing robots to counteract human bias and reducing bias in robots themselves. It presents a curated narrative review of cases in manipulation, metacognition, trust, stereotypes, intersectional design, algorithmic bias, robot abuse, and team diversity. For each case it lists "critical next steps" and social, legal, and ethical factors. The author explicitly disclaims comprehensiveness and prescriptiveness (Sec 19.1), frames the contribution as agenda-setting, and repeatedly labels evidence as early or needing further work.

Significance. Within the stated scope, the chapter is a useful and balanced agenda-setting synthesis. Its two-track structure organizes a scattered literature and connects it to policy and ethics, which suits a handbook audience. The author deserves credit for repeatedly flagging the curated nature of the selection, the small or null studies, and the provisional character of the "robots against bias" cases. The main limitation is that Track 1 depends on the premise that human cognitive biases are triggered by humanlike robots much as by people; the chapter labels this as a proposal rather than a demonstrated result. Because the limitation is disclosed and the central contribution is a research agenda rather than an empirical law, the issue can be addressed with local revisions.

major comments (1)

[Sec 19.1 and Track 1 (Sec 19.2)] The "robots against bias" track depends on the premise that social-cognitive biases are transferred to humanlike robots in roughly the same way as to humans. Section 19.1 states this directly ("I propose that it equally applies to robots") and invokes CASA research, but the chapter does not specify the boundary conditions under which a robot is processed as a social actor rather than a tool. The curated cases in Track 1 also contain several weak or null results that are acknowledged in the text but then used to draw fairly strong conclusions: Bethel et al. (Sec 19.2.1.2) contains a confound (unfavorable robot perceptions), Obo et al. (Sec 19.2.2.3) had n=7, and Ogunyale et al. (Sec 19.2.4.1) found no stereotype-priming effect. I recommend adding a short paragraph in Sec 19.1 (or at the start of Sec 19.2) that (a) explicitly states the transfer hypothesis, (b) summarizes the mixed evidence and its implications for the strength of the claims, and (c) identifies the contexts in which robots are most and least likely to be treated as social actors. This will make the chapter's hedges more consistent and prevent readers from over-generalizing the individual cases.

minor comments (5)

[Sec 19.2.3.1] The sentence "We appear to overtrust social, humanoid robots regardless of the severity of the situation or risk involved" overgeneralizes from the small set of studies reviewed; suggest adding "in the studies reviewed here" or similar.
[Sec 19.2.2.3] The sentence "people can be biased to exercise better when a robot employs a positive framing" should be softened to reflect the small pilot nature of Obo et al. (2017), e.g., "may be biased" and "in this small sample."
[Sec 19.1] The definition of bias shifts among "cognitive inclination," "unconscious errors," and "statistical and data" bias; a sentence explaining the relationship among these uses would help nonspecialist readers.
[Sec 19.3.2] The quote from Pereida and Greeff lacks a page or paragraph number; please add one for verifiability.
[Sec 19.2.2] The description of the "humor effect" as one of the five cognitive biases in Biswas and Murray is a bit terse; a one-sentence clarification would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the chapter is a narrative review whose claims rest on external empirical literature; self-citations are used as evidence, not as definitions of the conclusions.

full rationale

This is a position/narrative review chapter, not a derivation. The two tracks ('robots against bias' and 'against bias in robots') are supported by cited empirical studies (e.g., Bethel et al., Obo et al., Bartneck et al., Hundt et al.) and by established models (CASA, Kahneman/Tversky, Crenshaw's intersectionality). The author's central proposal—that human cognitive biases can be triggered by humanlike robots—is stated as a hypothesis ('I propose that it equally applies to robots,' Sec. 19.1), not as a consequence of a definition or of any fitted quantity. The handful of self-citations (Seaborn & Frank 2022; Seaborn & Pennefather 2022; Ueno et al. 2022) are used as evidence for specific empirical claims (e.g., gender framing in Pepper write-ups, limited empirical conclusions about gender-neutral robots) rather than as premises that define the chapter's conclusions. No equation, fitted parameter, or uniqueness theorem is invoked; no prediction is produced from an input that contains the result. The chapter explicitly disclaims comprehensiveness ('I do not attempt to be all encompassing or prescriptive') and labels its cases as 'curated,' so any limitation is disclosed scope, not circular dependence. The load-bearing support is external and falsifiable empirical literature, so the self-citations do not raise the circularity score.

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

The paper is a review, so its central claims rest on interpretive assumptions imported from the cited literature rather than on new derivations. The most important is the transfer of human bias mechanisms to robots, plus the choice to treat intersectionality and non-neutral technology as analytic frames. These are plausible and are flagged in the text, but they are not independently proven in this chapter.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Human cognitive biases are triggered by humanlike robot cues in ways comparable to human-human interaction.
Stated in Sec 19.1 as 'I propose that it equally applies to robots'; it is the foundation of both tracks and is supported by CASA research but not established for all robot forms.
domain assumption Robots are perceived and treated as social actors rather than neutral tools.
Invoked throughout Secs 19.2 and 19.3 via the Computers Are Social Actors literature; the chapter depends on this for overtrust, stereotyping, and robot abuse findings to be meaningful.
domain assumption Intersectionality is an appropriate analytic lens for robot design, algorithms, and team composition.
Sec 19.3.1 imports Crenshaw's framework into HRI and algorithmic fairness without deriving it from robot-specific evidence.
domain assumption Technology is not neutral, so bias is embedded in design choices rather than incidental.
Sec 19.3 states 'Technology is not neutral'; this normative premise is needed for the 'bias in robots' track.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bots against Bias: Critical Next Steps for Human-Robot Interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NE7AQL2E

@misc{pith2026241212542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bots against Bias: Critical Next Steps for Human-Robot Interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NE7AQL2E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12542}
}

read the original abstract

We humans are biased - and our robotic creations are biased, too. Bias is a natural phenomenon that drives our perceptions and behavior, including when it comes to socially expressive robots that have humanlike features. Recognizing that we embed bias, knowingly or not, within the design of such robots is crucial to studying its implications for people in modern societies. In this chapter, I consider the multifaceted question of bias in the context of humanoid, AI-enabled, and expressive social robots: Where does bias arise, what does it look like, and what can (or should) we do about it. I offer observations on human-robot interaction (HRI) along two parallel tracks: (1) robots designed in bias-conscious ways and (2) robots that may help us tackle bias in the human world. I outline a curated selection of cases for each track drawn from the latest HRI research and positioned against social, legal, and ethical factors. I also propose a set of critical next steps to tackle the challenges and opportunities on bias within HRI research and practice.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[3]

Seaborn (2024) l We can explore robots that are intentionally contrary and/or disruptive in contextually sensitive ways, such as within social media spaces

https://doi.org/10.5334%2Fjoc.91. Seaborn (2024) l We can explore robots that are intentionally contrary and/or disruptive in contextually sensitive ways, such as within social media spaces. l We can explore robots that incite cognitive dissonance and thereby elicit an opportunity to practice metacognition by way of thinking about this dissonance. Social ...

2024
[4]

39 Thaler, R

https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620946707. 39 Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C., Nudge: The Gentle Power of Choice Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale,

work page doi:10.1177/1529100620946707
[7]

42 Borenstein, J

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008. 42 Borenstein, J. and Arkin, R. C., Nudging for Good: Robots and the Ethical Appropriateness of Nurturing Empathy and Charitable Behavior. AI & SOCIETY 32(4), 499–507,

doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 2017
[8]

43 Ali Mehenni, H., Kobylyanskaya, S., Vasilescu, I., and Devillers, L., Nudges with Conversational Agents and Social Robots: A First Experiment with Children at a Primary School

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0684-1. 43 Ali Mehenni, H., Kobylyanskaya, S., Vasilescu, I., and Devillers, L., Nudges with Conversational Agents and Social Robots: A First Experiment with Children at a Primary School. In Conversational Dialogue Systems for the Next Decade. Singapore: Springer, 257–270,

work page doi:10.1007/s00146-016-0684-1
[11]

weaknesses

IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2017.8123075. Seaborn (2024) researchers modulated the voice of a semihumanoid PALRO robot in more or less positive or negative ways. While the study sample was small, consisting of seven older adults, the intervention was conducted over several days. In the first four days, the robot made use of the framing effect. Resul...

arXiv 2024
[12]

scammed

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53294-9_10. Seaborn (2024) l We may need to construct and explore the efficacy of measures to counteract the negative effects that this may have on social acceptability. Legal factors: l People may have an adverse reaction to being tricked or “scammed.” We may need special ethics or even regulations in place to account fo...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53294-9_10 2024
[13]

In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pp

https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.554578; Ueno, T., Sawa, Y., Kim, Y., Urakami, J., Oura, H., and Seaborn, K., Trust in Human-AI Interaction: Scoping Out Models, Measures, and Methods. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pp. 1–7, April

arXiv 2021
[16]

and Le Maguer, S., Should Robots have Accents? In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp

72 Torre, I. and Le Maguer, S., Should Robots have Accents? In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 208–214, August

2020

Show all 102 references

[18]

52 Mosier, K

https://doi.org/10.1145/3241365. 52 Mosier, K. L., Dunbar, M., McDonnell, L., Skitka, L. J., Burdick, M., and Rosenblatt, B., Automation Bias and Errors: Are Teams Better than Individuals? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 42, No. ...

doi
[19]

(2018), supra note 70, at

87 Bartneck et al. (2018), supra note 70, at

2018
[22]

57 Booth, S., Tompkin, J., Pfister, H., Waldo, J., Gajos, K., and Nagpal, R., Piggybacking Robots: Human-robot Overtrust in University Dormitory Security

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59719-5_6. 57 Booth, S., Tompkin, J., Pfister, H., Waldo, J., Gajos, K., and Nagpal, R., Piggybacking Robots: Human-robot Overtrust in University Dormitory Security. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot I...

doi
[23]

58 Aroyo, A

https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020211. 58 Aroyo, A. M., De Bruyne, J., Dheu, O., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Gudkov, A., Hoch, H., … and Tamò-Larrieux, A., Overtrusting Robots: Setting a Research Agenda to Mitigate Overtrust in Automation. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 1...
[24]

Seaborn (2024) l We can explore how transparency about a robot’s abilities affects overtrust and undertrust – perhaps in unexpected ways

https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0029. Seaborn (2024) l We can explore how transparency about a robot’s abilities affects overtrust and undertrust – perhaps in unexpected ways. Naïve users may, for instance, have high expectations of robots and be let down when they discover ...

2024 doi
[27]

60 Shih, M., Pittinsky, T

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235. 60 Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., and Ambady, N., Stereotype Susceptibility: Identity Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance. Psychological Science 10(1), 80–83,

doi
[28]

Math is Hard!

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00111; Steele, J. R. and Ambady, N., “Math is Hard!” The Effect of Gender Priming on Women’s Attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42(4), 428–436,
[32]

62 Ogunyale, T., Bryant, D

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.014. 62 Ogunyale, T., Bryant, D. A., and Howard, A., Does Removing Stereotype Priming Remove Bias? A Pilot Human-robot Interaction Study. Presented at the 5th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FAcc...

2014 doi
[33]

Seaborn (2024) primed with stereotypes related to light-skinned or dark-skinned people and emotional expression

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1807.00948. Seaborn (2024) primed with stereotypes related to light-skinned or dark-skinned people and emotional expression. The research design was limited by lack of a direct comparison or manipulation check of the robot’s perceived racial alig...

2024 doi arXiv
[34]

64 Song-Nichols, K

https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00021. 64 Song-Nichols, K. and Young, A., Gendered Robots Can Change Children’s Gender Stereotyping. In Proceedings of CogSci 2020,

2019
[35]

65 Winkle, K., Melsión, G

https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/cogsci20/papers/0588/. 65 Winkle, K., Melsión, G. I., McMillan, D., and Leite, I., Boosting Robot Credibility and Challenging Gender Norms in Responding to Abusive Behavior: A Case for Feminist Robots. In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE Inter...

2021
[36]

66 Seaborn, K

https://doi.org/10.1145/3434074.3446910. 66 Seaborn, K. and Pennefather, P., Gender Neutrality in Robots: An Open Living Review Framework. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 634–638,

2022
[37]

hear” nor “their

https://doi.org/10.5555/3523760.3523845; Seaborn, K. and Pennefather, P., Neither “hear” nor “their”: Interrogating Gender Neutrality in Robots. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 1030–1034,

2022
[38]

Seaborn (2024) masculine and feminine gender cues, using gender-neutral names, and most provocatively, shifting the robot’s gender over time in a gender fluid manner

https://doi.org/10.5555/3523760.3523929. Seaborn (2024) masculine and feminine gender cues, using gender-neutral names, and most provocatively, shifting the robot’s gender over time in a gender fluid manner. Stereotype activation may not always be avoidable, but it seems that ...

2024
[39]

68 Nass, Steuer, and Tauber (1994), supra note 61, at 16; Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B

https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-979120200000016005. 68 Nass, Steuer, and Tauber (1994), supra note 61, at 16; Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., Reeves, B., and Dryer, D. C., Can Computer Personalities be Human Personalities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(2), 223–239,

1994 doi
[42]

and Rigby, M., Gendered Robots: Implications for our Humanoid Future

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x; Alesich, S. and Rigby, M., Gendered Robots: Implications for our Humanoid Future. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 36(2), 50–59,

2012
[43]

and Taniguchi, K., Is a Robot a Boy? Japanese Children’s and Adults’ Gender-Attribute Bias toward Robots and Its Implications for Education on Gender Stereotypes

https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2017.2696598; Okanda, M. and Taniguchi, K., Is a Robot a Boy? Japanese Children’s and Adults’ Gender-Attribute Bias toward Robots and Its Implications for Education on Gender Stereotypes. Cognitive Development 58, 101044,

2017
[44]

In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021, pp

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101044; Wang, Z., Huang, J., and Fiammetta, C., Analysis of Gender Stereotypes for the Design of Service Robots: Case Study on the Chinese Catering Market. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021, pp. 1336–1344, June

2021
[45]

(2021), supra note 65, at 17; Perugia et al

https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462087; Winkle et al. (2021), supra note 65, at 17; Perugia et al. (2022), supra note 12, at 3; Suzuki, T. and Nomura, T., Gender Preferences for Robots and Gender Equality Orientation in Communication Situations. AI & SOCIETY, 1–10,

2021
[46]

70 Bartneck, C., Yogeeswaran, K., Ser, Q

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01438-7. 70 Bartneck, C., Yogeeswaran, K., Ser, Q. M., Woodward, G., Sparrow, R., Wang, S., and Eyssel, F., Robots and Racism. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 196–204, February

2018 doi
[47]

In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp

https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171260; Addison, A., Bartneck, C., and Yogeeswaran, K., Robots Can be More than Black and White: Examining Racial Bias towards Robots. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 493–498, January

2019
[50]

https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223599

IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN47096.2020.9223599. 73 Perugia et al. (2022), supra note 12, at

2022
[51]

voice” and “body

https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abf1364. Seaborn (2024) 19.3.1 CASE: INTERSECTIONAL DESIGN Intersectionality describes how social characteristics intersect with power in compounding ways. Originally proposed by Crenshaw75 for law, intersectionality has been taken up as a b...

2024 doi
[52]

K., and Grinter, R

76 Schlesinger, A., Edwards, W. K., and Grinter, R. E., Intersectional HCI: Engaging Identity through Gender, Race, and Class. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 5412–5427, May

2017
[53]

and Vora, K., Surrogate Humanity: Race, Robots, and the Politics of Technological Futures, Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2019; Søraa, R

https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025766; Atanasoski, N. and Vora, K., Surrogate Humanity: Race, Robots, and the Politics of Technological Futures, Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2019; Søraa, R. A. and Fosch-Villaronga, E., Exoskeletons for All: The Interplay between E...

2019
[54]

L., Gauthier, M., Sawchuk, K., DeJong, S., Gómez, S., Canzonetta, J., … and Cox, C

https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0036; Nurik, C. L., Gauthier, M., Sawchuk, K., DeJong, S., Gómez, S., Canzonetta, J., … and Cox, C. M., Intersectional Automations: Robotics, AI, Algorithms, and Equity, Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2021; Serholt, S., Ljungblad, S., ...

2020 doi
[55]

body” or form factor. The morphology – shape, size, width, weight, height, materials, textures, “clothes,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01224-x 77 https://intersectionaldesign.com. Seaborn (2024) 19.3.1.1 Example: Embodying Diversity in Voice and Body Social robots have a physical “body” or form factor. The morphology – shape, size, width, weight, height, materials, textures,...

2024 doi
[56]

https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600750; Crowelly, C

IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600750; Crowelly, C. R., Villanoy, M., Scheutzz, M., and Schermerhornz, P., Gendered Voice and Robot Entities: Perceptions and Reactions of Male and Female Subjects. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and S...

2008
[58]

and Torre, I., Can You Tell the Robot by the Voice? An Exploratory Study on the Role of Voice in the Perception of Robots

https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157717; McGinn, C. and Torre, I., Can You Tell the Robot by the Voice? An Exploratory Study on the Role of Voice in the Perception of Robots. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 211–221, March

2019
[59]

https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673305

IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673305. 79 Takayama, L., Groom, V., and Nass, C., I’m Sorry, Dave: I’m Afraid I Won’t Do that: Social Aspects of Human-agent Conflict. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2099–2108, April

2019
[60]

J., Szerszen Sr, K

https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1519021; Mitchell, W. J., Szerszen Sr, K. A., Lu, A. S., Schermerhorn, P. W., Scheutz, M., and MacDorman, K. F., A Mismatch in the Human Realism of Face and Voice Produces an Uncanny Valley. i-Perception 2(1), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1068/i041...

2022
[61]

light” or “dark

Seaborn (2024) the design of robots and their deployment in real life and research.81 Social characteristics that trace back to models of people have been recognized, as outlined above. Yet, the path forward is a bit unclear. For instance, we may racialize a relatively “light”...

2024
[62]

https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673130

IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673130. 82 Bartneck et al. (2018), supra note 70, at

2018
[63]

84 Bryant, D

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.876. 84 Bryant, D. A., Borenstein, J., and Howard, A., Why Should We Gender? The Effect of Robot Gendering and Occupational Stereotypes on Human Trust and Perceived Competency. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International...

doi
[65]

Yet, interventions may be staged or embedded in the design of robots

Seaborn (2024) including toddlers, are already socialized with ideas of gender86 and race,87 and apply these models to robots. Yet, interventions may be staged or embedded in the design of robots. We can draw inspiration from related domains. For example, Powell-Hopson and Hop...

2024
[68]

https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2018.2833157. However, Pepper’s real abilities have been questioned; refer to Robertson, J., Robo Sapiens Japanicus: Robots, Gender, Family, and the Japanese Nation, Oakland, CA, USA: University of California Press,

2018
[69]

90 Gunning, D., Stefik, M., Choi, J., Miller, T., Stumpf, S., and Yang, G

https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520959064. 90 Gunning, D., Stefik, M., Choi, J., Miller, T., Stumpf, S., and Yang, G. Z., XAI – Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Science Robotics 4(37), eaay7120,

doi
[70]

Seaborn (2024) means by which to understand why the algorithms have acted on that data in the ways that we can observe

https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aay7120. Seaborn (2024) means by which to understand why the algorithms have acted on that data in the ways that we can observe. At present, both remain a challenge to detect and enact. Social robots are no exception. Hundt and colleagues di...

2024 doi
[71]

92 Crenshaw, K., Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics

https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533138. 92 Crenshaw, K., Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. In Feminist Legal Theory, Oxford, UK: Routledge, 23–51,
[72]

95 Bryant, D

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/real-talk-intersectionality-and-ai/. 95 Bryant, D. A. and Howard, A., A Comparative Analysis of Emotion-Detecting AI Systems with Respect to Algorithm Performance and Dataset Diversity. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, E...

2019
[73]

96 Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K

https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314284. 96 Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K. W., Zou, J. Y., Saligrama, V., and Kalai, A. T., Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2016), 29,
[74]

Seaborn (2024) across a variety of platforms, from search engines to conversational agents to social robots

https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2016/hash/a486cd07e4ac3d270571622f4f316ec5-Abstract.html. Seaborn (2024) across a variety of platforms, from search engines to conversational agents to social robots. In short, the eyes and ears of our robot companions may be biased. This m...

2024
[75]

mindless robots get bullied

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.02.002. Seaborn (2024) behavior toward robots in general98 and particularly in relation to social characteristics like gender99 and age, especially children,100 has been a longstanding point of concern in HRI. Concern about abuse toward ro...

2024 doi
[76]

and Keijsers, M., The Morality of Abusing a Robot

https://doi.org/10.1075/is.9.3.04bar; Bartneck, C. and Keijsers, M., The Morality of Abusing a Robot. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 11(1), 271–283,

doi
[77]

(2021), supra note 65, at 17; Winkle, K., Jackson, R

https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0017 99 Winkle et al. (2021), supra note 65, at 17; Winkle, K., Jackson, R. B., Melsión, G. I., Bršcić, D., Leite, I. and Williams, T., Norm-breaking Responses to Sexist Abuse: A Cross-cultural Human Robot Interaction Study. In Proceedings of ...

2021 doi
[78]

100 Brščić, D., Kidokoro, H., Suehiro, Y., and Kanda, T., Escaping from Children’s Abuse of Social Robots

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/3523760.3523780. 100 Brščić, D., Kidokoro, H., Suehiro, Y., and Kanda, T., Escaping from Children’s Abuse of Social Robots. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 59–66, March
[80]

J., Lee, S., Jang, S., and Do, W., Designing Shelly, a Robot Capable of Assessing and Restraining Children’s Robot Abusing Behaviors

https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.02nom; Ku, H., Choi, J. J., Lee, S., Jang, S., and Do, W., Designing Shelly, a Robot Capable of Assessing and Restraining Children’s Robot Abusing Behaviors. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ...

2018 doi
[81]

In 2020 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp

https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3176973; Yamada, S., Kanda, T., and Tomita, K., An Escalating Model of Children’s Robot Abuse. In 2020 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 191–199, March

2020
[82]

102 Quote is the title of Keijsers, M

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783476732.00017. 102 Quote is the title of Keijsers, M. and Bartneck, C., Mindless Robots Get Bullied. In 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 205–214, March

2018
[83]

abuse evasive

https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Riek. Seaborn (2024) Young104 ask us to consider the impact of negative and otherwise emotionally or socially difficult studies for the human Wizard – ethics boards typically do not assess this, after all. In general, we cannot be “abuse evasiv...

2024 doi
[84]

105 Tan, X

https://doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3034782. 105 Tan, X. Z., Vázquez, M., Carter, E. J., Morales, C. G., and Steinfeld, A., Inducing Bystander Interventions during Robot Abuse with Social Mechanisms. In 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ...

2018
[85]

107 Connolly, J., Mocz, V., Salomons, N., Valdez, J., Tsoi, N., Scassellati, B., and Vázquez, M., Prompting Prosocial Human Interventions in Response to Robot Mistreatment

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0023304. 107 Connolly, J., Mocz, V., Salomons, N., Valdez, J., Tsoi, N., Scassellati, B., and Vázquez, M., Prompting Prosocial Human Interventions in Response to Robot Mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conferen...

doi
[86]

people” or “living beings

https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374781. Seaborn (2024) Critical next steps: l We can explore whether and how these results play out in the wild, not just the lab. Ideally, we can try to capture situations where people are at their most natural, feeling comfortable and unobser...

2024
[87]

109 Freeing robotics and AI from bias

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4230. 109 Freeing robotics and AI from bias. Science Editor’s Blog. www.science.org/content/blog-post/freeing-robotics-and-ai-bias; Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Reducing the Impact of Bias in the Stem Workforce: Strengtheni...

doi
[88]

Inclusive HRI

Seaborn (2024) gateway to STEM education and careers.110 Robots are cool! But robotics is not a diverse field of study. Indeed, critical voices drawing have highlighted a severe and ongoing diversity problem in robotics.111 Early exposure and positive engagement with mentors, ...

2024
[89]

https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10184534; Berry (2021), supra note 109, at

2021
[90]

115 Berger, J., Ridgeway, C

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331491. 115 Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., and Norman, R. Z., The Legitimation and Delegitimation of Power and Prestige Orders. American Sociological Review, 379–405,

2009
[91]

https://doi.org/10.2307/2657555; Berger, J., Seaborn (2024) leader/s will gain invisible privileges, while those whose social attributes do not match will lose out. More troubling for robotics, a survey of high-technology workplaces by DiTo-maso et al.116 found that white men ...

2024 doi
[94]

B., Khullar, D., Ho, O., Olenski, A

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308587 118 Jena, A. B., Khullar, D., Ho, O., Olenski, A. R., and Blumenthal, D. M., Sex Differences in Academic Rank in US Medical Schools in

doi
[95]

gender gap

https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.2015.10680. 119 Jagsi, R., Guancial, E. A., Worobey, C. C., Henault, L. E., Chang, Y., Starr, R., … and Hylek, E. M., The “gender gap” in Authorship of Academic Medical Literature – a 35-year Perspective. New England Journal of Medicine 355(3), 281–287,

2015
[96]

120 Chatterjee, P

https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa053910. 120 Chatterjee, P. and Werner, R. M., Gender Disparity in Citations in High-Impact Journal Articles. JAMA Network Open 4(7), e2114509–e2114509,

doi
[97]

121 Fournier, L

https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjamanetworkopen.2021.14509. 121 Fournier, L. E., Hopping, G. C., Zhu, L., Perez-Pinzon, M. A., Ovbiagele, B., McCullough, L. D., and Sharrief, A. Z., Females Are Less Likely Invited Speakers to the International Stroke Conference: Time’s up to Address...

2021
[98]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.06.001. Seaborn (2024) and/or nationality.123 Lerback124 found that the US may be particularly WEIRD,125 with paper acceptance rates and citations being negatively impacted by diverse authorship … but only in the States. Globally, diverse te...

2024 doi
[99]

124 Lerback, J

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00793-1. 124 Lerback, J. C., Hanson, B., and Wooden, P., Association between Author Diversity and Acceptance Rates and Citations in Peer-Reviewed Earth Science Manuscripts. Earth and Space Science 7(5), e2019EA000946,

doi
[100]

125 Henrich, J., Heine, S

https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA000946. 125 Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A., The Weirdest People in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3), 61–83,

doi
[102]

https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451777

IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451777. 127 Seaborn and Frank (2022), supra note 6, at

2022
[103]

129 Nature Genetics, Science Is Social

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9975-2. 129 Nature Genetics, Science Is Social. Nature Genetics 50(1619),

doi
[104]

identity-blind

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0308-4. Seaborn (2024) al.130 recently discovered, taking an “identity-blind” approach can lead to spurious outcomes. However, embracing a multicultural perspective on team diversity that recognizes the importance of social power typically le...

2024 doi
[105]

Seaborn (2024) l We must enforce these regulations

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/apl0000446. Seaborn (2024) l We must enforce these regulations. If you find that you cannot, seek outside help from objective third parties with experience in diversity. Ethical factors: l We must avoid performative gestures of diversity. We...

2024 doi
[613]

J., Steele, C

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613; Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., and Quinn, D. M., Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35(1), 4–28,

doi
[1987]

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(87)80013-5; Lee, J. D. and See, K. Seaborn (2024) meaning that there is a match between the person’s belief and actual abilities of the robot, distrust, which we may also call undertrust, and overtrust. Ideally, we achieve a Goldilocks level ...

2024 doi
[1988]

Seaborn (2024) Legal factors: l Robots designed in stereotyped ways that reflect negatively on real people could constitute a form of discrimination or even hate crime

https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984880142004. Seaborn (2024) Legal factors: l Robots designed in stereotyped ways that reflect negatively on real people could constitute a form of discrimination or even hate crime. Ethical factors: l People deserve access to a variety of robots t...

2024 doi
[1994]

Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 75–84,

https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191703; Tay, B., Jung, Y., and Park, T., When Stereotypes Meet Robots: The Double-edge Sword of Robot Gender and Personality in Human–robot Interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 75–84,
[1995]

and Nass, C., The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People

https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1042; Reeves, B. and Nass, C., The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 1996; Nass, C. I., Moon, Y., and Morkes, J. Computers are Social Actors: A Review o...

1995
[1998]

53 Itoh, M., Toward Overtrust-Free Advanced Driver Assistance Systems

https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129804200304. 53 Itoh, M., Toward Overtrust-Free Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. Cognition, Technology & Work 14(1), 51–60,

doi
[1999]

J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C

https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373; Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., and Brown, J., When White Men Can’t Do Math: Necessary and Sufficient Factors in Stereotype Threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35(1), 29–46. https://doi.org...

1998
[2000]

Seaborn (2024) formulation of a Computer Are Social Actors (CASA) model

https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153. Seaborn (2024) formulation of a Computer Are Social Actors (CASA) model. Gender,69 race,70 nationality,71 accent,72 age,73 and more are social constructs embedded in the design of robots that are known to prompt biased reactions in part...

2024
[2002]

Annual Review of Sociology 33, 473,

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9558.00157 116 DiTomaso, N., Post, C., and Parks-Yancy, R., Workforce Diversity and Inequality: Power, Status, and Numbers. Annual Review of Sociology 33, 473,
[2004]

51 Wagner, A

https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392. 51 Wagner, A. R., Borenstein, J., and Howard, A., Overtrust in the Robotic Age. Communications of the ACM 61(9), 22–24,

doi
[2006]

E., Losee, J., and Vitiello, C., A Replication Attempt of Stereotype Susceptibility (Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999): Identity Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.003; Gibson, C. E., Losee, J., and Vitiello, C., A Replication Attempt of Stereotype Susceptibility (Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999): Identity Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance. Social Psychology 45(3), 194,

2005 doi
[2007]

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131805 117 Horwitz, S. K. and Horwitz, I. B., The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-analytic Review of Team Demography. Journal of Management 33(6), 987–1015,
[2008]

ethical nudging

Seaborn (2024) desirable to us, in our favor. Boosting40 are strategies that aim to improve our cognitive and motivational competencies to enhance our abilities and behavior. Technocognition41 takes our knowledge of people’s psychology and applies it to the design of technolog...

2024
[2009]

IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2009.5354204; Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Bobinger, S., De Ruiter, L., and Hegel, F., “If You Sound Like Me, You Must Be More Human’ on the Interplay of Robot and User Features on Human-Robot Acceptance and Anthropomorphism. In Proceedings ...

2009
[2010]

126 Baxter, P., Kennedy, J., Senft, E., Lemaignan, S., and Belpaeme, T., From Characterising Three Years of HRI to Methodology and Reporting Recommendations

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X. 126 Baxter, P., Kennedy, J., Senft, E., Lemaignan, S., and Belpaeme, T., From Characterising Three Years of HRI to Methodology and Reporting Recommendations. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (H...

2016 doi
[2011]

36 Azevedo, R., Reflections on the Field of Metacognition: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6. 36 Azevedo, R., Reflections on the Field of Metacognition: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities. Metacognition and Learning 15(2), 91–98,

doi
[2014]

61 Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E

https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000184. 61 Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E. R., Computers Are Social Actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 72–78, April

doi
[2015]

63–64, March

https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696468; Nomura, T., Uratani, T., Kanda, T., Matsumoto, K., Kidokoro, H., Suehiro, Y., and Yamada, S., Why Do Children Abuse Robots? In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstrac...
[2016]

56 Robinette, P., Howard, A., and Wagner, A

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.057. 56 Robinette, P., Howard, A., and Wagner, A. R., Conceptualizing Overtrust in Robots: Why Do People Trust a Robot that Previously Failed? In Autonomy and Artificial Intelligence: A Threat or Savior? Cham: Springer, 129–155,

2016 doi
[2017]

post-truth

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496. 41 Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., and Cook, J., Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “post-truth” Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6(4), 353–369,

doi
[2018]

49 Wagner (2009, p

https://doi.org/10.1145/3152890. 49 Wagner (2009, p. 31), supra note 48, at

2009 doi
[2019]

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0037. Seaborn (2024) To this end, we can engage with the following topics on where robots may be able to step in when we are tripped up by our biases: Critical next steps: l Building on the literature above, we need user studies and human subj...

2024
[2020]

37 Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., and van der Linden, S., Good News about Bad News: Gamified Inoculation Boosts Confidence and Cognitive Immunity against Fake News

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09231-x. 37 Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., and van der Linden, S., Good News about Bad News: Gamified Inoculation Boosts Confidence and Cognitive Immunity against Fake News. Journal of Cognition 3(1),

doi
[2021]

44 Skewes, J., Amodio, D

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8395-7_19. 44 Skewes, J., Amodio, D. M., and Seibt, J., Social Robotics and the Modulation of Social Perception and Bias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 374(1771), 20180037,

doi
[2022]

48 Wagner, A

https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519772. 48 Wagner, A. R., The Role of Trust and Relationships in Human-Robot Social Interaction. Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009; Wagner, A. R., Robinette, P., and Howard, A., Modeling the Human-Robot Trust Phenomenon: A Conceptual Framew...

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Seaborn (2024) l We can explore robots that are intentionally contrary and/or disruptive in contextually sensitive ways, such as within social media spaces

https://doi.org/10.5334%2Fjoc.91. Seaborn (2024) l We can explore robots that are intentionally contrary and/or disruptive in contextually sensitive ways, such as within social media spaces. l We can explore robots that incite cognitive dissonance and thereby elicit an opportunity to practice metacognition by way of thinking about this dissonance. Social ...

2024

[2] [4]

39 Thaler, R

https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620946707. 39 Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C., Nudge: The Gentle Power of Choice Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale,

work page doi:10.1177/1529100620946707

[3] [7]

42 Borenstein, J

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008. 42 Borenstein, J. and Arkin, R. C., Nudging for Good: Robots and the Ethical Appropriateness of Nurturing Empathy and Charitable Behavior. AI & SOCIETY 32(4), 499–507,

doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 2017

[4] [8]

43 Ali Mehenni, H., Kobylyanskaya, S., Vasilescu, I., and Devillers, L., Nudges with Conversational Agents and Social Robots: A First Experiment with Children at a Primary School

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0684-1. 43 Ali Mehenni, H., Kobylyanskaya, S., Vasilescu, I., and Devillers, L., Nudges with Conversational Agents and Social Robots: A First Experiment with Children at a Primary School. In Conversational Dialogue Systems for the Next Decade. Singapore: Springer, 257–270,

work page doi:10.1007/s00146-016-0684-1

[5] [11]

weaknesses

IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2017.8123075. Seaborn (2024) researchers modulated the voice of a semihumanoid PALRO robot in more or less positive or negative ways. While the study sample was small, consisting of seven older adults, the intervention was conducted over several days. In the first four days, the robot made use of the framing effect. Resul...

arXiv 2024

[6] [12]

scammed

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53294-9_10. Seaborn (2024) l We may need to construct and explore the efficacy of measures to counteract the negative effects that this may have on social acceptability. Legal factors: l People may have an adverse reaction to being tricked or “scammed.” We may need special ethics or even regulations in place to account fo...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53294-9_10 2024

[7] [13]

In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pp

https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.554578; Ueno, T., Sawa, Y., Kim, Y., Urakami, J., Oura, H., and Seaborn, K., Trust in Human-AI Interaction: Scoping Out Models, Measures, and Methods. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pp. 1–7, April

arXiv 2021

[8] [16]

and Le Maguer, S., Should Robots have Accents? In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp

72 Torre, I. and Le Maguer, S., Should Robots have Accents? In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 208–214, August

2020