Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 145 references

"Is it always watching? Is it always listening?" Exploring Contextual Privacy and Security Concerns Toward Domestic Social Robots

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Privacy fears for home robots hinge on who uses them, interviews show

desk verdict A useful qualitative map of privacy expectations for domestic social robots, but the central 'highly context-dependent' claim is undermined by a fixed scenario order the authors acknowledge but do not remove. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10786 v2 pith:BL5UCTBQ submitted 2025-07-14 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CRcs.ETcs.HC

Henry Bell , Jabari Kwesi , Hiba Laabadli , Pardis Emami-Naeini This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.CRcs.ETcs.HC
keywords socialrobotsprivacyconcernssecuritycontext-dependentsmarthomequalitativeinterviewsdomesticdatatransparency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that U.S. consumers who already use smart home devices and chatbots hold context-dependent privacy and security expectations for domestic social robots. Through 19 semi-structured interviews, the authors find that concerns shift sharply with the intended user (self, child, elderly, or household) and the purpose (education, medical, therapy). They also show that participants expect tangible privacy controls, clear data-collection indicators, and context-appropriate functionality, and that current U.S. regulations such as HIPAA and COPPA do not yet provide these protections. The study matters because social robots are still early in commercialization, leaving a design and policy window that this work tries to inform.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is a scenario-based semi-structured interview built on a six-feature specification of a domestic social robot: visual recognition, voice recognition, expressive communication, personalization, navigation and mapping, and internet connection. This specification was compiled as a superset of capabilities from five commercial robots, and participants were told it was a real product to ground their reactions. Four device-recipient conditions (self, child, elderly, household) and three purpose-of-use conditions (education, medical, psychological therapy) were systematically walked through, and two researchers independently coded the responses using thematic analysis. This recipient-by-purpose matrix is what lets the paper attribute differences in concern and expectations to context rather than to the device itself.

What would settle it

A representative survey of several hundred U.S. adults, asked the same recipient-by-purpose scenario questions, would settle whether concerns are as context-dependent and expectations as uniform as the 19 interviews suggest.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that consumers' privacy and security concerns about domestic social robots are not uniform but highly context-dependent. Participants were least worried about owning a robot for themselves, most worried about children's data and social development, concerned about elderly users' usability and susceptibility to manipulation, and focused on misinformation in educational uses and reliability in medical uses. Nearly all participants voiced concerns about audio and video data collection and data inference before being prompted, yet few raised AI-specific risks such as model memorization. The authors further claim that participants expect transparency through multiple channels, on-device signals of data collection, review-and-delete functions, physical kill switches, and parental controls, and that these expectations are not met by current devices or the U.S. regulatory landscape, which treats social robots largely like ordinary IoT devices.

Load-bearing premise

The findings rest on 19 interviews with a mostly highly educated, tech-experienced Prolific sample, and if that group's views do not reflect the wider U.S. public, the design and policy recommendations may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers should build tangible privacy controls, including on-device camera/audio indicators, physical kill switches, review-and-delete functions, and granular parental controls.
  • Medical-adjacent uses will trigger expectations of HIPAA-like protections that current law does not provide unless the robot is supplied by a covered entity.
  • If social robots consolidate the smart home into one device, data-linkage risks increase, but centralized privacy management could reduce privacy fatigue.
  • The low salience of AI-specific risks among participants implies that transparency about model training, inference, and data use is a necessary design input.
  • U.S. regulations should treat social robots as a category distinct from general IoT, closing the COPPA loophole for data collected about children rather than directly from them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If context-dependence holds at scale, a single privacy dashboard or one-time consent flow will not suffice; robots would need mode- or user-specific data policies that adapt to who is present and what the robot is doing.
  • The privacy resignation expressed by some participants suggests that transparency and controls, while necessary, may not change adoption behavior much unless they also address users' sense of inevitability.
  • The recipient-by-purpose scenario matrix could be repurposed as a practical risk-assessment checklist for regulators evaluating future social robot products.
  • A longitudinal field study with actual robots could test whether the stated expectations from interviews match observed privacy-seeking behavior, addressing the privacy-paradox question the paper acknowledges.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Based on 19 semi-structured interviews with U.S.-based Prolific participants who own smart-home devices and have used AI chatbots, the paper examines privacy and security perceptions of a hypothetical domestic social robot. Participants were shown a six-feature robot specification and seven scenarios (four device-recipient contexts and three purpose contexts), then asked about their concerns and expectations. The authors report that participants largely anchored social robots to smart speakers and chatbots, worried most about audio/video data collection and data inference, showed context-dependent concern patterns (e.g., child safety, elderly usability, shared-household data leakage, misinformation in education, reliability in medical use), and expected transparency, tangible controls, parental controls, and regulation. The paper contributes qualitatively derived design and policy implications for domestic social robots in the U.S.

Significance. If the findings are accepted, this is a useful early qualitative map of consumer privacy and security attitudes toward domestic social robots, with concrete design guidance such as on-device indicators, kill switches, parental controls, and regulatory clarification. The study has notable strengths: the protocol was IRB-approved, the deception was disclosed and debriefed, saturation is described with four additional interviews, two researchers coded independently, and the reporting uses a defined frequency terminology. The materials are openly linked. The main risk is the internal validity of the cross-context comparisons, which underpin the paper's central claim that concerns were 'highly context-dependent.'

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Appendix A.3.2, §4.2, §5] The central comparative claim in §5 that concerns were 'highly context-dependent' is not cleanly identified. All 19 participants experienced the seven scenarios in the same fixed order (self, child, elderly, household, then education, medical, therapy), and the three purpose scenarios explicitly instructed participants to 'keep in mind the four user scenarios we just described' (Appendix A.3.2). Consequently, the cross-context differences reported in §4.2 (e.g., misinformation dominating education, reliability dominating medical, therapy introducing no new concerns) could reflect order effects, fatigue, or anchoring to earlier blocks rather than the scenario content. The limitation paragraph in §3.1 acknowledges that randomizing order 'could' improve the study, but the results are still presented as comparative findings. Please either reframe these comparisons as exploratory and hypothesis-generating, provide transcript-based evidence (e.g., order-of-mention analyses or participants' explicit cross-scenario comparisons) that order/carryover did not drive the pattern, or supplement with data from a randomized-order protocol.
  2. [Abstract, §5, §3.1] The abstract and conclusion generalize to 'U.S. users' security and privacy needs and concerns, but the sample consists of 19 Prolific participants who all own smart-home devices, all have used chatbots, are mostly highly educated, and are concentrated in the 25-64 age range (Table 1). The limitations section acknowledges this demographic narrowness, but the headline claim is not correspondingly qualified. Please align the abstract and conclusion with the RQs' more precise framing ('U.S.-based participants') and explicitly state that the design implications are grounded in this sample of smart-home and chatbot users, pending broader validation.
  3. [§4.2, §5] The statement in §4.2 that 'no participants talked about unique risks introduced by the AI components of social robots' is used in §5 to suggest 'a potential lack of awareness' of generative-AI risks. This absence claim is not well supported by the protocol: the interview did not explicitly prompt for AI-specific risks until the final section (§A.3.3), and earlier sections asked open-endedly about comfort and concerns. The absence of unprompted mentions may reflect the interview's sequencing and the participants' limited familiarity with social robots rather than a genuine lack of awareness. Please soften this claim or provide evidence about what participants were asked before concluding that they lacked awareness of AI-specific risks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3] In 'Section 1: Knowledge and Awareness Toward Social Robots', the text says 'In the second section, we asked questions...' but this is the first section; the numbering appears to be a typo.
  2. [§2] In the paragraph beginning 'Our study builds upon existing research,' 'laregely' should be 'largely.'
  3. [§3] In the interview scenario design, 'This scenarios focuses on a child' should read 'This scenario focuses on a child.'
  4. [§5] The name 'Shcafer et al.' in the discussion of regulatory work should be 'Schafer et al.,' matching reference [101].
  5. [§3.1] The limitations paragraph discusses the fixed scenario order as if it were solely a flow preference, but the conditioning of purpose scenarios on recipient scenarios is also a design choice that affects interpretation; the acknowledgment could be more specific about the carryover mechanism.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: findings are reported interview data with no fitted or self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This is an interview-based qualitative study with no equations, fitted parameters, or model-derived predictions. The central claims—that U.S. smart-home/chatbot users have security and privacy concerns about domestic social robots, that these concerns are context-dependent, and that users want transparency, controls, and context-appropriate functionality—are empirical summaries of 19 semi-structured interviews analyzed thematically. Citations to the authors' prior IoT privacy work appear as related-work framing (e.g., Emami-Naeini et al. [85] on IoT expectations, [38] on willingness to pay) and as the source of the percentage-reporting terminology in Figure 1 ([39]); none of these citations supplies a premise that defines or forces the qualitative results. The paper does not import a uniqueness theorem, does not rename a known result as a derivation, and does not fit a parameter and then relabel it as a prediction. The §3.1 limitation acknowledging that scenario order was not randomized raises an internal-validity concern for cross-context comparisons, but that is a methodological correctness issue, not circularity as defined in this pass. The derivation chain, such as it is, runs directly from interview responses to thematic findings, so the output is not equivalent to the input by construction.

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

This is a qualitative interview study, so there are no fitted parameters or invented entities. The load-bearing assumptions are about self-report validity, the coverage of the robot specification, and saturation; each is a standard or disclosed domain assumption.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Participant self-reports in hypothetical scenarios accurately reflect their real privacy and security attitudes.
    The study relies on stated concerns rather than observed behavior; Section 3.1 acknowledges social desirability, self-assessment bias, and the privacy paradox.
  • domain assumption The six-feature robot specification (visual and voice recognition, expressive communication, personalization, navigation/mapping, internet) captures the privacy-relevant capabilities of real domestic social robots.
    The specification was compiled as a superset from five robots found on Amazon in February 2024 (§3), but it omits capabilities such as emotion inference or third-party data sharing, which could affect the elicited concerns.
  • domain assumption Data saturation at 15 interviews, plus 4 additional interviews, is sufficient for thematic completeness.
    The authors cite Saunders et al. and Francis et al. (§3), but saturation cannot be independently verified without access to the transcripts.
  • domain assumption Two coders resolving all disagreements without calculating inter-rater reliability is an acceptable reliability procedure.
    The paper states that inter-rater reliability was not calculated because all disagreements were resolved (§3), following McDonald et al.; this is a recognized practice but not independently checkable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "Is it always watching? Is it always listening?" Exploring Contextual Privacy and Security Concerns Toward Domestic Social Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BL5UCTBQ

@misc{pith2026250710786,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "Is it always watching? Is it always listening?" Exploring Contextual Privacy and Security Concerns Toward Domestic Social Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BL5UCTBQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10786}
}
read the original abstract

Equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced sensing capabilities, social robots are gaining interest among consumers in the United States. These robots seem like a natural evolution of traditional smart home devices. However, their extensive data collection capabilities, anthropomorphic features, and capacity to interact with their environment make social robots a more significant security and privacy threat. Increased risks include data linkage, unauthorized data sharing, and the physical safety of users and their homes. It is critical to investigate U.S. users' security and privacy needs and concerns to guide the design of social robots while these devices are still in the early stages of commercialization in the U.S. market. Through 19 semi-structured interviews, we identified significant security and privacy concerns, highlighting the need for transparency, usability, and robust privacy controls to support adoption. For educational applications, participants worried most about misinformation, and in medical use cases, they worried about the reliability of these devices. Participants were also concerned with the data inference that social robots could enable. We found that participants expect tangible privacy controls, indicators of data collection, and context-appropriate functionality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10786 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The terminology we use to report participants’ per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

145 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An overview of chatbot technology

    Eleni Adamopoulou and Lefteris Moussiades. An overview of chatbot technology. In IFIP international conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations, pages 373–383. Springer, 2020. 12

    2020

  2. [2]

    Chatbots’ effectiveness in service recovery.International Journal of Information Management, page 102679, 07 2023

    Arpita Agnihotri and Saurabh Bhattacharya. Chatbots’ effectiveness in service recovery.International Journal of Information Management, page 102679, 07 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Amazon in business to customers and overcom- ing obstacles

    Abdullah Altrad, P Ravindran Pathmanathan, Yazeed Al Moaiad, Yousef Mohamed Endara, Khairi Aseh, Yousef A Baker El-Ebiary, Mazen Mohammed Farea, Nurul Adilah Abdul Latiff, and Syarilla Iryani Ahmad Saany. Amazon in business to customers and overcom- ing obstacles. In 2021 2nd International Conference on Smart Computing and Electronic Enterprise (ICSCEE), ...

    2021

  4. [4]

    You, me, and iot: How internet-connected consumer devices affect interpersonal relationships

    Noah Apthorpe, Pardis Emami-Naeini, Arunesh Mathur, Marshini Chetty, and Nick Feamster. You, me, and iot: How internet-connected consumer devices affect interpersonal relationships. ACM Transactions on Internet of Things, 3(4):1–29, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Unsocial robots: How western culture dooms consumer social robots to a society of one

    Matthew Peter Aylett, Randy Gomez, Eleanor Sandry, and Selma Sabanovic. Unsocial robots: How western culture dooms consumer social robots to a society of one. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’23, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  6. [6]

    Barbosa, Zhuohao Zhang, and Yang Wang

    Natã M. Barbosa, Zhuohao Zhang, and Yang Wang. Do privacy and security matter to everyone? quantifying and clustering User-Centric considerations about smart home device adoption. In Sixteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2020) , pages 417–435. USENIX Association, August 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: Attitudinal changes following brief exposure

    Jenay Beer, Akanksha Prakash, Cory-Ann Smarr, Tiffany Chen, Kelsey Hawkins, Hai Nguyen, Travis Deyle, Charles Kemp, and Wendy Rogers. Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: Attitudinal changes following brief exposure. Gerontechnology, 16(1):21– 36, May 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    So- cial robots for education: A review

    Tony Belpaeme, James Kennedy, Aditi Ramachan- dran, Brian Scassellati, and Fumihide Tanaka. So- cial robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21):eaat5954, 2018

    2018

Show all 145 references
  1. [9]

    On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fair- ness, accountability, and transparency, pages 610–623, 2021

    Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan- Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fair- ness, accountability, and transparency, pages 610–623, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Berzuk and James E

    James M. Berzuk and James E. Young. Clarifying social robot expectation discrepancy: Developing a framework for understanding how users form expec- tations of social robots. In Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI ’23, page 23...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Privacy in pervasive computing and open issues

    Pankaj Bhaskar and Sheikh I Ahamed. Privacy in pervasive computing and open issues. In The Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES’07), pages 147–154, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    I create, therefore i agree: Exploring the effect of ai anthropomorphism on human decision-making

    Nanyi Bi and Janet Yi-Ching Huang. I create, therefore i agree: Exploring the effect of ai anthropomorphism on human decision-making. In Companion Publica- tion of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW ’23 Companion, page 241–244...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Emotionally intelligent chatbots: a systematic literature review

    Ghazala Bilquise, Samar Ibrahim, and Khaled Shaalan. Emotionally intelligent chatbots: a systematic literature review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2022(1):9601630, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Using thematic analysis in psychology

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psy- chology, 3:77–101, 01 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Toward sociable robots

    Cynthia Breazeal. Toward sociable robots. Robotics and autonomous systems, 42(3-4):167–175, 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    Social robots for health applications

    Cynthia Breazeal. Social robots for health applications. In 2011 Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society , pages 5368–5371. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Bernheim Brush, Bongshin Lee, Ratul Maha- jan, Sharad Agarwal, Stefan Saroiu, and Colin Dixon

    A.J. Bernheim Brush, Bongshin Lee, Ratul Maha- jan, Sharad Agarwal, Stefan Saroiu, and Colin Dixon. Home automation in the wild: challenges and opportu- nities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’11, page 2115–2124, New York, NY...

    2011

  10. [18]

    Navigating the human-robot in- teraction landscape

    Nicholas Callander, Andrés A Ramírez-Duque, and Mary Ellen Foster. Navigating the human-robot in- teraction landscape. practical guidelines for privacy- conscious social robots. In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 283–287, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Robots and privacy

    Ryan Calo. Robots and privacy. In Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George A. Bekey, editors, Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, pages 187–202. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Exploring human-robot interaction with the elderly: 13 Results from a ten-week case study in a care home

    Felix Carros, Johanna Meurer, Diana Löffler, David Unbehaun, Sarah Matthies, Inga Koch, Rainer Wiech- ing, Dave Randall, Marc Hassenzahl, and V olker Wulf. Exploring human-robot interaction with the elderly: 13 Results from a ten-week case study in a care home. In Proceedings ...

    2020

  13. [21]

    it did not give me an option to decline

    George Chalhoub, Martin J Kraemer, Norbert Nthala, and Ivan Flechais. “it did not give me an option to decline”: A longitudinal analysis of the user experience of security and privacy in smart home products. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computi...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Patel, and Julie A

    Eun Kyoung Choe, Sunny Consolvo, Jaeyeon Jung, Beverly Harrison, Shwetak N. Patel, and Julie A. Kientz. Investigating receptiveness to sensing and inference in the home using sensor proxies. In Pro- ceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp ’12, page...

    2012

  15. [23]

    The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior.Com- puters in Human Behavior, 81:42–51, 2018

    Hanbyul Choi, Jonghwa Park, and Yoonhyuk Jung. The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior.Com- puters in Human Behavior, 81:42–51, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Hci in business: A collaboration with academia in iot privacy

    Richard Chow, Serge Egelman, Raghudeep Kannavara, Hosub Lee, Suyash Misra, and Edward Wang. Hci in business: A collaboration with academia in iot privacy. pages 679–687, 08 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    an emotional support animal, without the animal

    Sawyer Collins, Kenna Baugus Henkel, Zachary Henkel, Casey C Bennett, Cedomir Stanojevic, Jen- nifer A Piatt, Cindy L Bethel, and Selma Sabanovi´c. " an emotional support animal, without the animal": De- sign guidelines for a social robot to address symptoms of depression. In ...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Ftc announces crackdown on deceptive ai claims and schemes

    Federal Trade Commission. Ftc announces crackdown on deceptive ai claims and schemes. FTC Release, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Comparing how a chatbot references user utterances from previous chatting sessions: An investigation of users’ privacy concerns and perceptions

    Samuel Rhys Cox, Yi-Chieh Lee, and Wei Tsang Ooi. Comparing how a chatbot references user utterances from previous chatting sessions: An investigation of users’ privacy concerns and perceptions. In Proceed- ings of the 11th International Conference on Human- Agent Interaction,...

    2023

  20. [28]

    A social robot as therapy facilitator in interventions to deal with dementia-related behavioral symptoms

    Dagoberto Cruz-Sandoval, Arturo Morales-Tellez, Ed- uardo Benitez Sandoval, and Jesus Favela. A social robot as therapy facilitator in interventions to deal with dementia-related behavioral symptoms. In Proceed- ings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Personalized privacy assistants for the internet of things: Providing users with notice and choice

    Anupam Das, Martin Degeling, Daniel Smullen, and Norman Sadeh. Personalized privacy assistants for the internet of things: Providing users with notice and choice. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 17(3):35–46, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Can social robots help children in healthcare contexts? a scoping review

    Julia Dawe, Craig Sutherland, Alex Barco, and Eliz- abeth Broadbent. Can social robots help children in healthcare contexts? a scoping review. BMJ paedi- atrics open, 3(1), 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    The evaluation of different roles for domestic social robots

    Maartje MA De Graaf and Somaya Ben Allouch. The evaluation of different roles for domestic social robots. In 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) , pages 676–681. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    Why would i use this in my home? a model of domestic social robot acceptance

    Maartje MA de Graaf, Somaya Ben Allouch, and Jan AGM Van Dijk. Why would i use this in my home? a model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human–Computer Interaction, 34(2):115–173, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    yours is better!

    Nicola Dell, Vidya Vaidyanathan, Indrani Medhi, Ed- ward Cutrell, and William Thies. "yours is better!": participant response bias in hci. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’12, page 1321–1330, New York, NY , USA, 2012. Associat...

    2012

  26. [34]

    A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots: attacks and lessons

    Tamara Denning, Cynthia Matuszek, Karl Koscher, Joshua R Smith, and Tadayoshi Kohno. A spotlight on security and privacy risks with future household robots: attacks and lessons. In Proceedings of the 11th inter- national conference on Ubiquitous computing, pages 105–114, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    Long-term value of social robots through the eyes of expert users

    Dmitry Dereshev, David Kirk, Kohei Matsumura, and Toshiyuki Maeda. Long-term value of social robots through the eyes of expert users. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–12, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    how can i help you?

    Jayati Dev and Sruti Dev. “how can i help you?”: User perceptions of privacy in retail chat agents. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’23, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  29. [37]

    The intricacies of social robots: Secondary analysis of fictional documentaries to explore the bene- fits and challenges of robots in complex social settings

    Judith Dörrenbächer, Ronda Ringfort-Felner, and Marc Hassenzahl. The intricacies of social robots: Secondary analysis of fictional documentaries to explore the bene- fits and challenges of robots in complex social settings. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Fa...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Are consumers will- ing to pay for security and privacy of{IoT} devices? In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 1505–1522, 2023

    Pardis Emami-Naeini, Janarth Dheenadhayalan, Yuvraj Agarwal, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. Are consumers will- ing to pay for security and privacy of{IoT} devices? In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 1505–1522, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Exploring how privacy and security factor into iot device purchase behavior

    Pardis Emami-Naeini, Henry Dixon, Yuvraj Agarwal, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. Exploring how privacy and security factor into iot device purchase behavior. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, page 1–12, New York, NY , USA, 2019...

    2019

  32. [40]

    How ai chatbots have reshaped the frontline interface in china: examining the role of sales–service ambidexterity and the personalization–privacy paradox

    Hua Fan, Bing Han, Wei Gao, and Wenqian Li. How ai chatbots have reshaped the frontline interface in china: examining the role of sales–service ambidexterity and the personalization–privacy paradox. International Journal of Emerging Markets, ahead-of-print, 01 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Did i tell you my new therapist is a robot? ethical, legal, and societal issues of healthcare and therapeutic robots

    Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux, and Christoph Lutz. Did i tell you my new therapist is a robot? ethical, legal, and societal issues of healthcare and therapeutic robots. Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues of Healthcare and Therapeutic Robots (October 17, 2018), 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    What is an adequate sample size? operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies

    Jill J Francis, Marie Johnston, Clare Robertson, Liz Glidewell, Vikki Entwistle, Martin P Eccles, and Jeremy M Grimshaw. What is an adequate sample size? operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology and health, 25(10):1229– 1245, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Consumer acceptance of social robots in domestic settings: A human-robot interaction perspective

    Yajie Gao, Yaping Chang, Tangwutu Yang, and Zhihao Yu. Consumer acceptance of social robots in domestic settings: A human-robot interaction perspective. Jour- nal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 82:104075, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Emma: An emotion-aware well- being chatbot

    Asma Ghandeharioun, Daniel McDuff, Mary Czerwin- ski, and Kael Rowan. Emma: An emotion-aware well- being chatbot. In 2019 8th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), pages 1–7, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    The more competent, the better? the effects of perceived compe- tencies on disclosure towards conversational artificial intelligence

    Miriam Gieselmann and Kai Sassenberg. The more competent, the better? the effects of perceived compe- tencies on disclosure towards conversational artificial intelligence. Social Science Computer Review, 41:2342 – 2363, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and conversational cues on humanness perceptions

    Eun Go and S Shyam Sundar. Humanizing chatbots: The effects of visual, identity and conversational cues on humanness perceptions. Computers in Human Be- havior, 97:304–316, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Pri- vacy beyond data: Assessment and mitigation of pri- vacy risks in robotic technology for elderly care

    Reinhard Grabler and Sabine Theresia Koeszegi. Pri- vacy beyond data: Assessment and mitigation of pri- vacy risks in robotic technology for elderly care. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 14(1):1–23, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Information needs and percep- tions of chatbots for hypertension medication self- management: A mixed methods study

    Ashley Griffin, Zhaopeng Xing, Sean Mikles, Stacy Bailey, Saif Khairat, Jaime Arguello, Yue Wang, and Arlene Chung. Information needs and percep- tions of chatbots for hypertension medication self- management: A mixed methods study. JAMIA Open, 4, 04 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Social desirability bias

    Pamela Grimm. Social desirability bias. Wiley interna- tional encyclopedia of marketing, 2010

    2010

  42. [50]

    States strike out on their own on ai, pri- vacy regulation

    Paige Gross. States strike out on their own on ai, pri- vacy regulation. Washington State Standard, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    User privacy harms and risks in conversa- tional ai: A proposed framework, 2024

    Ece Gumusel, Kyrie Zhixuan Zhou, and Madelyn Rose Sanfilippo. User privacy harms and risks in conversa- tional ai: A proposed framework, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    it’s a scavenger hunt

    Hana Habib, Sarah Pearman, Jiamin Wang, Yixin Zou, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Norman Sadeh, and Florian Schaub. " it’s a scavenger hunt": Us- ability of websites’ opt-out and data deletion choices. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Identi- fying user needs for advertising controls on facebook

    Hana Habib, Sarah Pearman, Ellie Young, Ishika Sax- ena, Robert Zhang, and Lorrie FaIth Cranor. Identi- fying user needs for advertising controls on facebook. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interac- tion, 6(CSCW1):1–42, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    The educational use of home robots for children

    Jeonghye Han, Miheon Jo, Sungju Park, and Sungho Kim. The educational use of home robots for children. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005., pages 378–383. IEEE, 2005

    2005

  47. [55]

    Anna Henschel, Guy Laban, and Emily S. Cross. What makes a robot social? a review of social robots from science fiction to a home or hospital near you. Current Robotics Reports, 2(1):9–19, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    Privacy cynicism: A new approach to the privacy paradox

    Christian Pieter Hoffmann, Christoph Lutz, and Giulia Ranzini. Privacy cynicism: A new approach to the privacy paradox. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psy- chosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4), 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    Great expec- tations? relation of previous experiences with social robots in real life or in the media and expectancies based on qualitative and quantitative assessment

    Aike C Horstmann and Nicole C Krämer. Great expec- tations? relation of previous experiences with social robots in real life or in the media and expectancies based on qualitative and quantitative assessment. Fron- tiers in psychology, 10:939, 2019. 15

    2019

  50. [58]

    Exploring teachers’ attitudes towards using chatgpt

    Nayab Iqbal, Hassaan Ahmed, and Kaukab Abid Azhar. Exploring teachers’ attitudes towards using chatgpt. Global Journal for Management and Administrative Sciences, 3(4):97–111, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Privacy concerns in chatbot interactions

    Carolin Ischen, Theo Araujo, Hilde V oorveld, Guda van Noort, and Edith Smit. Privacy concerns in chatbot interactions. In Chatbot Research and Design: Third International Workshop, CONVERSATIONS 2019, Am- sterdam, The Netherlands, November 19–20, 2019, Re- vised Selected Pape...

    2019

  52. [60]

    A social robot to mitigate stress, anxiety, and pain in hospital pediatric care

    Sooyeon Jeong, Deirdre E Logan, Matthew S Good- win, Suzanne Graca, Brianna O’Connell, Honey Good- enough, Laurel Anderson, Nicole Stenquist, Katie Fitz- patrick, Miriam Zisook, et al. A social robot to mitigate stress, anxiety, and pain in hospital pediatric care. In Proceedi...

    2015

  53. [61]

    Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial

    Takayuki Kanda, Tomohiro Hirano, Donald Eaton, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human- Computer Interaction, 19(1-2):61–84, 2004

    2004

  54. [62]

    Working with ai to persuade: Ex- amining a large language model’s ability to generate pro-vaccination messages

    Elise Karinshak, Sunny Xun Liu, Joon Sung Park, and Jeffrey T Hancock. Working with ai to persuade: Ex- amining a large language model’s ability to generate pro-vaccination messages. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1):1–29, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    The social psychology of biased self-assessment

    Samuel C Karpen. The social psychology of biased self-assessment. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(5):6299, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Chatbot advertising as a double-edged sword: The roles of regulatory focus and privacy concerns.Journal of Advertising, 52:1–19, 04 2022

    Woojin Kim, Yuhosua Ryoo, SoYoung Lee, and Jung Lee. Chatbot advertising as a double-edged sword: The roles of regulatory focus and privacy concerns.Journal of Advertising, 52:1–19, 04 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Empowering privacy in the connected home: communal use of smart technologies

    Martin Johannes Krämer. Empowering privacy in the connected home: communal use of smart technologies. PhD thesis, University of Oxford, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Cybercrime and privacy threats of large language models

    Nir Kshetri. Cybercrime and privacy threats of large language models. IT Professional, 25(3):9–13, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    Does my smart device provider care about my privacy? investigating trust factors and user attitudes in iot sys- tems

    Oksana Kulyk, Kristina Milanovic, and Jeremy Pitt. Does my smart device provider care about my privacy? investigating trust factors and user attitudes in iot sys- tems. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Soc...

    2020

  60. [68]

    Jung, and Ross A

    Minae Kwon, Malte F. Jung, and Ross A. Knepper. Human expectations of social robots. In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, HRI ’16, page 463–464. IEEE Press, 2016

    2016

  61. [69]

    Alexa, are you listening? privacy percep- tions, concerns and privacy-seeking behaviors with smart speakers

    Josephine Lau, Benjamin Zimmerman, and Florian Schaub. Alexa, are you listening? privacy percep- tions, concerns and privacy-seeking behaviors with smart speakers. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 2(CSCW), nov 2018

    2018

  62. [70]

    Reframing assistive robots to promote successful aging

    Hee Rin Lee and Laurel D Riek. Reframing assistive robots to promote successful aging. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 7(1):1–23, 2018

    2018

  63. [71]

    Privacy preference mod- eling and prediction in a simulated campuswide iot environment

    Hosub Lee and Alfred Kobsa. Privacy preference mod- eling and prediction in a simulated campuswide iot environment. pages 276–285, 03 2017

    2017

  64. [72]

    Surveying adult perceptions of pri- vacy and attitudes towards social robots in the home

    Leigh Levinson, Tyler Barrett, Randy Gomez, and Selma Sabanovi´c. Surveying adult perceptions of pri- vacy and attitudes towards social robots in the home. In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Con- ference on Human-Robot Interaction, pages 664–668, 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    Our busi- ness, not the robot’s: family conversations about pri- vacy with social robots in the home

    Leigh Levinson, Jessica McKinney, Christena Nippert- Eng, Randy Gomez, and Selma Šabanovi´c. Our busi- ness, not the robot’s: family conversations about pri- vacy with social robots in the home. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 11:1331347, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Ethical issues in near-future socially supportive smart assistants for older adults

    Alex John London, Yosef S Razin, Jason Borenstein, Motahhare Eslami, Russell Perkins, and Paul Robinette. Ethical issues in near-future socially supportive smart assistants for older adults. IEEE Transactions on Tech- nology and Society, 4(4):291–301, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    The privacy implications of social robots: Scoping review and expert interviews

    Christoph Lutz, Maren Schöttler, and Christian Pieter Hoffmann. The privacy implications of social robots: Scoping review and expert interviews. Mobile Media & Communication, 7(3):412–434, 2019

    2019

  68. [76]

    Do privacy concerns about social robots affect use intentions? evi- dence from an experimental vignette study

    Christoph Lutz and Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux. Do privacy concerns about social robots affect use intentions? evi- dence from an experimental vignette study. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 2021

    2021

  69. [77]

    The robot privacy paradox: Understanding how privacy concerns shape intentions to use social robots

    Christoph Lutz and Aurelia Tamó-Larrieux. The robot privacy paradox: Understanding how privacy concerns shape intentions to use social robots. In Human- Machine Communication, volume 1, pages 87–111, 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    Data integration in iot ecosystem: Information linkage as a privacy threat

    Nishtha Madaan, Mohd Abdul Ahad, and Sunil M Sas- try. Data integration in iot ecosystem: Information linkage as a privacy threat. Computer law & security review, 34(1):125–133, 2018

    2018

  71. [79]

    Ai in e-commerce: Application of the use and gratification model to the acceptance of chatbots

    Rob Marjerison, Youran Zhang, and Hanyi Zheng. Ai in e-commerce: Application of the use and gratification model to the acceptance of chatbots. Sustainability, 14:14270, 11 2022. 16

    2022

  72. [80]

    Reliability and inter-rater reliability in quali- tative research: Norms and guidelines for cscw and hci practice

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in quali- tative research: Norms and guidelines for cscw and hci practice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. , 3(CSCW), nov 2019

    2019

  73. [81]

    Humans perceive warmth and competence in artificial intelligence

    Kevin R McKee, Xuechunzi Bai, and Susan T Fiske. Humans perceive warmth and competence in artificial intelligence. Iscience, 26(8), 2023

    2023

  74. [82]

    Public and scholarly interest in social robots: An investigation through google trends, biblio- metric analysis, and systematic literature review

    Nidhi Mishra, Teena Bharti, Aviral Kumar Tiwari, and Gregor Pfajfar. Public and scholarly interest in social robots: An investigation through google trends, biblio- metric analysis, and systematic literature review. Tech- nological Forecasting and Social Change, 206:123578, 2024

    2024

  75. [83]

    Sociable robot improves toddler vocabulary skills

    Javier Movellan, Micah Eckhardt, Marjo Virnes, and Angelica Rodriguez. Sociable robot improves toddler vocabulary skills. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, pages 307–308, 2009

    2009

  76. [84]

    Care staff perceptions of a social robot called paro and a look-alike plush toy: a de- scriptive qualitative approach

    Wendy Moyle, Marguerite Bramble, Cindy Jones, and Jenny Murfield. Care staff perceptions of a social robot called paro and a look-alike plush toy: a de- scriptive qualitative approach. Aging & mental health, 22(3):330–335, 2018

    2018

  77. [85]

    Privacy expectations and preferences in an IoT world

    Pardis Emami Naeini, Sruti Bhagavatula, Hana Habib, Martin Degeling, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. Privacy expectations and preferences in an IoT world. In Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017), pages 399–412, Santa Clara, CA, Ju...

    2017

  78. [86]

    A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards so- cial robots

    Stanislava Naneva, Marina Sarda Gou, Thomas L Webb, and Tony J Prescott. A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards so- cial robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(6):1179–1201, 2020

    2020

  79. [87]

    Magdalene Ng, Kovila P. L. Coopamootoo, Ehsan Tor- eini, Mhairi Aitken, Karen Elliot, and Aad van Moorsel. Simulating the effects of social presence on trust, pri- vacy concerns & usage intentions in automated bots for finance, 2020

    2020

  80. [88]

    Social acceptance and impact of robots and artificial intelligence

    Hiroyuki Nitto, Daisuke Taniyama, and Hitomi Inagaki. Social acceptance and impact of robots and artificial intelligence. Nomura Res. Inst. Pap, 211:1–5, 2017

    2017

  81. [89]

    A room with an overview: Towards meaningful transparency for the consumer internet of things

    Chris Norval and Jatinder Singh. A room with an overview: Towards meaningful transparency for the consumer internet of things. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2023

    2023

  82. [90]

    Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls

    Martin T Orne. Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow’s classic books, 110:110–137, 2009

    2009

  83. [91]

    A systematic review on social robots in public spaces: Threat landscape and attack surface

    Samson O Oruma, Mary Sánchez-Gordón, Ricardo Colomo-Palacios, Vasileios Gkioulos, and Joakim K Hansen. A systematic review on social robots in public spaces: Threat landscape and attack surface. Comput- ers, 11(12):181, 2022

    2022

  84. [92]

    Analyzing the elderly users’ adoption of smart-home services

    Debajyoti Pal, Suree Funilkul, Vajirasak Vanijja, and Borworn Papasratorn. Analyzing the elderly users’ adoption of smart-home services. IEEE access , 6:51238–51252, 2018

    2018

  85. [93]

    Growing growth mindset with a social robot peer

    Hae Won Park, Rinat Rosenberg-Kima, Maor Rosen- berg, Goren Gordon, and Cynthia Breazeal. Growing growth mindset with a social robot peer. In Proceed- ings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pages 137–145, 2017

    2017

  86. [94]

    Human perception of social robot’s emotional states via facial and ther- mal expressions

    Denis Peña and Fumihide Tanaka. Human perception of social robot’s emotional states via facial and ther- mal expressions. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 9(4):1–19, 2020

    2020

  87. [95]

    A long-term engagement with a social robot for autism therapy

    Nazerke Rakhymbayeva, Aida Amirova, and Anara Sandygulova. A long-term engagement with a social robot for autism therapy. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8:669972, 2021

    2021

  88. [96]

    Study of a home robot: Jibo

    Pranav Rane, Varun Mhatre, and Lakshmi Kurup. Study of a home robot: Jibo. International journal of engineering research and technology, 3(10):490–493, 2014

    2014

  89. [97]

    Legal and human rights issues of ai: Gaps, challenges and vulnerabilities

    Rowena Rodrigues. Legal and human rights issues of ai: Gaps, challenges and vulnerabilities. Journal of Responsible Technology, 4:100005, 10 2020

    2020

  90. [98]

    Privacy Concerns in Chatbot Interactions: When to Trust and When to Worry, pages 391–399

    Rahime Saglam, Jason Nurse, and Duncan Hodges. Privacy Concerns in Chatbot Interactions: When to Trust and When to Worry, pages 391–399. 07 2021

    2021

  91. [99]

    i just shared your re- sponses

    Shruti Sannon, Brett Stoll, Dominic DiFranzo, Malte F. Jung, and Natalya N. Bazarova. “i just shared your re- sponses”: Extending communication privacy manage- ment theory to interactions with conversational agents. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 4(GROUP), jan 2020

    2020

  92. [100]

    Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and opera- tionalization

    Benjamin Saunders, Julius Sim, Tom Kingstone, Shula Baker, Jackie Waterfield, Bernadette Bartlam, Heather Burroughs, and Clare Jinks. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and opera- tionalization. Quality & quantity, 52:1893–1907, 2018. 17

    1907

  93. [101]

    i spy, with my little sensor

    Burkhard Schafer and Lilian Edwards. “i spy, with my little sensor”: fair data handling practices for robots between privacy, copyright and security. Connection Science, 29(3):200–209, 2017

    2017

  94. [102]

    Robots tutor- ing children: Longitudinal evaluation of social engage- ment in child-robot interaction

    Sofia Serholt and Wolmet Barendregt. Robots tutor- ing children: Longitudinal evaluation of social engage- ment in child-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 9th nordic conference on human-computer interaction, pages 1–10, 2016

    2016

  95. [103]

    Should we welcome robot teach- ers? Ethics and Information Technology, 18:283–297, 2016

    Amanda JC Sharkey. Should we welcome robot teach- ers? Ethics and Information Technology, 18:283–297, 2016

    2016

  96. [104]

    Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly–a mini-review

    Takanori Shibata and Kazuyoshi Wada. Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly–a mini-review. Gerontology, 57(4):378–386, 2011

    2011

  97. [105]

    Quantifying healthcare consumers’ perspectives: An empirical study of the drivers and bar- riers to adopting generative ai in personalized health- care

    Jatin Pal Singh. Quantifying healthcare consumers’ perspectives: An empirical study of the drivers and bar- riers to adopting generative ai in personalized health- care. ResearchBerg Review of Science and Technology, 2(1):171–193, 2022

    2022

  98. [106]

    The user experience of chatgpt: Find- ings from a questionnaire study of early users

    Marita Skjuve, Asbjørn Følstad, and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. The user experience of chatgpt: Find- ings from a questionnaire study of early users. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, pages 1–10, 2023

    2023

  99. [107]

    Per- ceived usefulness of a social robot augmented tele- health platform by therapists in the united states

    Michael J Sobrepera, Vera G Lee, Suveer Garg, Rochelle Mendonca, and Michelle J Johnson. Per- ceived usefulness of a social robot augmented tele- health platform by therapists in the united states. IEEE robotics and automation letters, 6(2):2946–2953, 2021

    2021

  100. [108]

    A taxonomy of privacy

    Daniel J Solove. A taxonomy of privacy. U. Pa. l. Rev., 154:477, 2005

    2005

  101. [109]

    it’s the equivalent of feeling like you’re in {Jail

    Sophie Stephenson, Majed Almansoori, Pardis Emami- Naeini, and Rahul Chatterjee. " it’s the equivalent of feeling like you’re in {Jail”}: Lessons from firsthand and secondhand accounts of {IoT-Enabled} intimate partner abuse. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security ...

    2023

  102. [110]

    Child safety in the smart home: parents’ perceptions, needs, and mitiga- tion strategies

    Kaiwen Sun, Yixin Zou, Jenny Radesky, Christopher Brooks, and Florian Schaub. Child safety in the smart home: parents’ perceptions, needs, and mitiga- tion strategies. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2):1–41, 2021

    2021

  103. [111]

    Research on the re- lationship between self-ai connection and customer engagement–based on the analysis of customer ai trust and ai anthropomorphism

    Yubing Sun and Qingyu Liang. Research on the re- lationship between self-ai connection and customer engagement–based on the analysis of customer ai trust and ai anthropomorphism. In Proceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Information Man- agement and Management...

    2023

  104. [112]

    The safety of domestic robotics: A survey of various safety-related publications

    Tadele Shiferaw Tadele, Theo de Vries, and Stefano Stramigioli. The safety of domestic robotics: A survey of various safety-related publications. IEEE robotics & automation magazine, 21(3):134–142, 2014

    2014

  105. [113]

    Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: Field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learn- ing

    Fumihide Tanaka and Shizuko Matsuzoe. Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: Field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learn- ing. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1):78–95, 2012

    2012

  106. [114]

    Confidant: A privacy controller for social robots

    Brian Tang, Dakota Sullivan, Bengisu Cagiltay, Varun Chandrasekaran, Kassem Fawaz, and Bilge Mutlu. Confidant: A privacy controller for social robots. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) , pages 205–214. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  107. [115]

    Privacy first: designing responsible and inclusive social robot applications for in the wild studies

    Meg Tonkin, Jonathan Vitale, Sarita Herse, Syed Ali Raza, Srinivas Madhisetty, Le Kang, The Duc Vu, Ben- jamin Johnston, and Mary-Anne Williams. Privacy first: designing responsible and inclusive social robot applications for in the wild studies. In 2019 28th IEEE Internationa...

    2019

  108. [116]

    Social robot interventions for child healthcare: A systematic review of the literature

    Andreas Triantafyllidis, Anastasios Alexiadis, Kon- stantinos V otis, and Dimitrios Tzovaras. Social robot interventions for child healthcare: A systematic review of the literature. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, page 100108, 2023

    2023

  109. [117]

    Panola: A personal assistant for supporting users in preserving privacy

    Onuralp Ulusoy and Pinar Yolum. Panola: A personal assistant for supporting users in preserving privacy. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) , 22(1):1–32, 2021

    2021

  110. [118]

    Teachers’ perspectives on social robots in education: an exploratory case study

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

    2020

  111. [119]

    How to trick ai: Users’ strategies for protecting themselves from automatic personality assessment

    Sarah Theres Völkel, Renate Haeuslschmid, Anna Werner, Heinrich Hussmann, and Andreas Butz. How to trick ai: Users’ strategies for protecting themselves from automatic personality assessment. In Proceed- ings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CH...

    2020

  112. [120]

    Living with seal robots—its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house

    Kazuyoshi Wada and Takanori Shibata. Living with seal robots—its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE trans- actions on robotics, 23(5):972–980, 2007

    2007

  113. [121]

    Is mental privacy a component of personal identity? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15:773441, 2021

    Abel Wajnerman Paz. Is mental privacy a component of personal identity? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15:773441, 2021

    2021

  114. [122]

    Social robot — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2024

    Wikipedia contributors. Social robot — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2024. [Online; accessed 30-April- 2024]

    2024

  115. [123]

    Colorado becomes first state with sweeping artificial intelligence regulations

    Sara Wilson. Colorado becomes first state with sweeping artificial intelligence regulations. Colorado Newsline, 2024

    2024

  116. [124]

    Trust me: Doubts and concerns living with the internet of things

    Peter Worthy, Ben Matthews, and Stephen Viller. Trust me: Doubts and concerns living with the internet of things. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, DIS ’16, page 427–434, New York, NY , USA, 2016. Association for Computing Machinery

    2016

  117. [125]

    End user security and privacy concerns with smart homes

    Eric Zeng, Shrirang Mare, and Franziska Roesner. End user security and privacy concerns with smart homes. In Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Se- curity (SOUPS 2017), pages 65–80, Santa Clara, CA, July 2017. USENIX Association

    2017

  118. [126]

    Deceptive ai ecosystems: The case of chatgpt

    Xiao Zhan, Yifan Xu, and Stefan Sarkadi. Deceptive ai ecosystems: The case of chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13671, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Aiot- enabled smart surveillance for personal data digi- talization: Contextual personalization-privacy para- dox in smart home

    Fengjiao Zhang, Zhao Pan, and Yaobin Lu. Aiot- enabled smart surveillance for personal data digi- talization: Contextual personalization-privacy para- dox in smart home. Information & Management , 60(2):103736, 2023

    2023

  120. [128]

    it’s a fair game

    Zhiping Zhang, Michelle Jia, Bingsheng Yao, Sauvik Das, Ada Lerner, Dakuo Wang, Tianshi Li, et al. " it’s a fair game”, or is it? examining how users navigate disclosure risks and benefits when using llm-based con- versational agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11653, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  121. [129]

    User perceptions of smart home iot pri- vacy

    Serena Zheng, Noah Apthorpe, Marshini Chetty, and Nick Feamster. User perceptions of smart home iot pri- vacy. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer In- teraction, 2(CSCW), November 2018. Publisher Copy- right: © 2018 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication right...

    2018

  122. [130]

    Data linkage in smart internet of things systems: a consideration from a privacy perspective

    Xu Zheng, Zhipeng Cai, and Yingshu Li. Data linkage in smart internet of things systems: a consideration from a privacy perspective. IEEE Communications Magazine, 56(9):55–61, 2018

    2018

  123. [131]

    The trusted listener: The influence of anthropomorphic eye design of social robots on user’s perception of trustworthiness

    Xinyu Zhu, Xingguo Zhang, Zinan Chen, Zhanxun Dong, Zhenyu Gu, and Danni Chang. The trusted listener: The influence of anthropomorphic eye design of social robots on user’s perception of trustworthiness. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing S...

    2022

  124. [132]

    Have you ever heard of the term social robot? (a) (If yes) In your own words, how would you define a social robot? (b) (If no) If you had to guess, how would you define a social robot?

  125. [133]

    Like other robots, a social robot is physically embodied

    What capabilities do you think a device should have to be counted as a social robot? Providing a definition for a social robot While there is no single definition of what a social robot is, for the purposes of this interview, we’ll define a social robot as an artificial intel-...

  126. [134]

    Is this definition clear to you, or is there any part of this definition that you would like us to further elaborate on?

  127. [135]

    Do you know of any technologies currently available for purchase that fit the provided definition of a social robot? 19 Robot Specification An established company is aiming to develop a novel social robot. They are currently working on designing the prototype device, and they ...

  128. [136]

    Which of these features are you most comfortable with and why?

  129. [137]

    Which of these features are you most concerned about and why?

  130. [138]

    Would you consider purchasing this specific social robot in the near future, and why?

  131. [139]

    We will ask some follow-up questions after each sce- nario

    What information would you like to have to make an in- formed decision as to whether or not to have this specific social robot in your home? A.3.2 Contextual Privacy And Security Attitudes In this section, we are going to walk through some potential use-case scenarios for the ...

  132. [140]

    How comfortable or concerned are you with this de- scribed scenario, and why? (a) (If concerned) What do you think should happen to make you less concerned about this described scenario? A.3.3 Privacy And Security Expectations Toward Social Robots

  133. [141]

    On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not at all important and 5 being very important, how important do you consider privacy and security to be in your decision to purchase a social robot and why?

  134. [142]

    What type of privacy and security information, if any, would you want to know about to determine if you would purchase a social robot?

  135. [143]

    What type of information, if any, would you want to know about the conversational artificial intelligence features of a social robot to determine if you would purchase it?

    As a reminder, social robots collect information, and use artificial intelligence to enable social interactions. What type of information, if any, would you want to know about the conversational artificial intelligence features of a social robot to determine if you would purchase it?

  136. [144]

    How would you like this information to be communi- cated to you to inform your purchasing decisions?

  137. [145]

    In addition, it can react and respond to the visual cues

    Who do you think is responsible for protecting users from the potential privacy and security risks of social robots, and how? A.4 Debriefing Statement The debriefing statement is available at the following link: https://github.com/socialrobotattitudes/ SRMaterial/blob/main/Deb...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.