Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Designing for Difference: How Human Characteristics Shape Perceptions of Collaborative 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 Online observers rated collaborations with aged partners more sensitively and preferred handovers, while condemning antisocial robot behavior.

desk verdict Robust antisocial finding, but the big handover claim is confounded and the aged-sensitivity result is exploratory. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16480 v1 pith:HNROHQJ3 submitted 2025-07-22 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CVcs.ETcs.SYeess.SY

Sabrina Livanec , Laura Londoño , Michael Gorki , Adrian Röfer , Abhinav Valada , Andrea Kiesel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.CVcs.ETcs.SYeess.SY
keywords Human-RobotCollaborationSocialRoboticsHuman-CenteredRobotDesignCognitive-AffectiveMappingTechnologyAcceptanceProtectedCharacteristicsHandoverInteractionAntisocialBehavior
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 reports an online experiment in which 112 participants watched short videos of a person and a robot jointly unpacking a shopping basket, with the robot's behavior and the human partner's characteristics varied across 28 combinations. The authors set out to show that observers' judgments of a collaborative robot depend not only on what the robot does but on whom it is working with. They find that antisocial robot behavior, which makes the human wait while the robot handles other items first, is rated worst in every comparison, that collaborations with an aged partner are judged more sensitively, and that scenarios in which the robot hands objects directly to the person are rated more positively than scenarios in which it places them on the table. A cognitive-affective mapping exercise before the ratings did not change overall judgments, though it shifted some specific subscale ratings in exploratory analyses. The takeaway claim is that prosocial, adaptive robot behavior and the interaction format together shape perceived acceptability, which matters for designing assistive robots for diverse users.

What carries the argument

The central object is a set of 28 video vignettes of a human-robot collaboration task, a human and a robot unpacking a shopping basket, created by crossing seven robot-behavior conditions (antisocial, maxFluency, alternating items, and midFluency, with the latter three also shown in handover variants) with four human conditions (young female, young male, disabled male, aged female). A human actor in a morphsuit played the robot to mimic a gripper arm on a mobile platform. The argument is carried by a summed scale score built from eleven subscales (procedural and interpersonal fairness, perceived usefulness, quality of interaction, system performance, positive teammate traits, attitude toward use, Godspeed likeability and perceived intelligence, plus a general rating), which gives a single acceptability value per video. The handover/no-handover contrast and the person-condition contrasts are then tested with ANOVAs, paired t-tests, and a Bayesian ANOVA.

What would settle it

A preregistered replication with a motion-capture or timing analysis of the actor performances: if the 'disabled' and 'aged' videos show the same task-completion times and movement difficulty as the young videos, the human-characteristic effects should vanish; conversely, a control condition with the same actor without crutches that yields identical ratings would show the crutch condition did not carry the effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the perceived acceptability of a collaborative robot is jointly determined by the robot's social behavior and by the human partner's physical characteristics, with the interaction paradigm as an additional mediator. In a fully crossed video design, the robot's behavior varied along four dimensions (antisocial, maxFluency, midFluency, alternating items) and two delivery modes (handover versus no-handover), and the human partner was a young female, a young male, a disabled male, or an aged female. Aggregating across the CAM and control groups, antisocial behavior scored significantly below all other behaviors; the only protected-characteristic effect that clearly survived was heightened sensitivity in evaluations involving the aged partner; and the handover conditions were rated substantially more positively than no-handover, with a large effect. The authors interpret these results as evidence that both human characteristics and interaction paradigms influence acceptance, and that prosocial robot design should be prioritized.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the video conditions actually instantiate the intended human characteristics: the disabled partner is an actor on crutches doing a hand-only task at the same pace as the young actors, so if that performance did not differ, the claimed influence of human characteristics on perceived acceptability would be unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Antisocial robot behavior, defined as making the human wait while the robot processes other items first, should be avoided in any assistive robot design, since observers rated it worst regardless of the human partner.
  • Direct handover of objects is perceived as more positive collaboration than placing them on a table, so designers of domestic assistive robots should prioritize handing objects to users, including older users.
  • Raters are more sensitive when the partner is an aged person, so robot behavior that demands speed (maxFluency) is not rescued by a handover for that group.
  • Several of the authors' expected acceptability rankings were not supported by the data, indicating that even interdisciplinary teams cannot reliably predict acceptability of nuanced robot behaviors in advance and that observer data collection is needed.
  • CAM reflection did not shift overall acceptance but did alter some fairness and likeability subscales in exploratory analyses, so it may serve as a sensitization tool rather than a rating manipulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader should not conclude that the disability condition had a genuine effect: the paper's own discussion notes that the disabled partner was an actor on crutches performing a hand-only task at the same pace as the young actors, so the robust protected-characteristic finding is the age effect, not the disability effect.
  • Observer ratings of videos are not the same as lived experience, so an untested extension would be to run the same behavior contrasts with actual older adults and people with mobility impairments performing the task, where handover preferences and fluency sensitivity may be stronger or weaker.
  • The large handover effect suggests a concrete design rule for domestic robots, hand the object over when in doubt, which could be tested in a physical human-robot experiment measuring task completion and user comfort rather than video-based ratings.
  • The exploratory CAM results hint that a short reflection exercise before user studies could make participants more critical of fairness and likeability, and a direct test would be to repeat the study with CAM as the only manipulation and fairness subscales as the primary outcome.
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. This paper reports an online video-based study (N = 112) in which participants rated seven of 28 filmed human-robot collaboration scenarios that varied in robot behavior (antisocial, maxFluency, midFluency, alternating items), passing mode (handover vs. no-handover), and human partner characteristics (young female, young male, disabled male, aged female). Half of the participants first completed a cognitive-affective mapping (CAM) exercise. The authors report that the CAM manipulation did not change overall ratings; that antisocial behavior was rated lower than all other behaviors; that evaluations involving an aged partner differed from those involving young partners; and, from an analysis labeled exploratory, that handover scenarios were rated more positively than no-handover scenarios (t(111) = 8.81, d = 0.83). The paper concludes that both human characteristics and interaction paradigm shape perceived acceptability of collaborative robots.

Significance. If the reported effects hold, the paper offers useful empirical orientation for inclusive social-robot design: the antisocial effect (H2) is robust, with a Welch ANOVA (F(3, 349.070) = 37.975, p < .001, omega-squared = 0.196) and significant Games-Howell pairwise comparisons. The submission has several genuine strengths: a pre-specified expected-acceptability table (Table 2) that allows an honest comparison of predictions with outcomes, consistent reporting of effect sizes and confidence intervals, Bayes factors for null-oriented hypotheses (H9), linked stimulus videos, and the authors' own acknowledgment of the disabled-condition limitation. The reported null effect of the CAM reflection manipulation is stated transparently. The significance of the headline handover and aged-sensitivity claims, however, depends on reanalysis, because the handover comparison currently conflates handing condition with the presence of the antisocial condition.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.1, Abstract, Conclusion] The paired t-test comparing handover (M = 54.67) with no-handover (M = 48.04), t(111) = 8.81, d = 0.83, is confounded by stimulus composition. Because the antisocial condition appears only in the no-handover set (footnote 3, §3.1.1) and every row of Table 1 contains exactly one antisocial video, each participant's no-handover mean always includes a condition rated roughly 15 points lower than all others (Table 5). On a four-video mean this mechanically depresses the no-handover value by about four points of the observed 6.63-point gap, independent of any true handover effect. The within-behavior analyses contradict the aggregate claim: H6 (Table 4) shows a handover advantage only for alternating items (omega-squared = 0.036), no significant advantage for midFluency, no confirmation of H8, and inconclusive Bayes evidence for H9. The abstract's statement that 'scenarios involving object handovers were viewed more positively' and the parallel Conclusion sentence are therefore not supported as stated. I request a matched reanalysis that excludes or models the antisocial condition, and a revision of the abstract and conclusion to state only the behavior-specific result that the data actually support. In addition, the captions of Figures 8 and 9 say 'for personCharacteristics = aged,' which is inconsistent with the reported df = 111 for the full-sample paired t-test; the analysis underlying these figures needs clarification.
  2. [§4.2.1, Table 4, Conclusion] The abstract and Conclusion claim that collaboration with aged individuals 'elicited more sensitive evaluations' and that the aged characteristic 'predicted that participants were more sensitive in their ratings,' but this conclusion rests on the exploratory H3 analysis for the aged subgroup in §4.2.1, for which no test statistics are reported in the main text and no correction for multiple comparisons is described. The construct 'sensitive' is never operationalized, and the observed pattern (fewer significant differences among robot behaviors for the aged partner than for young partners) could equally reflect reduced statistical power in the subgroup rather than heightened sensitivity in participants. I recommend either reporting the aged-subgroup analysis transparently with statistics, effect sizes, and correction, and defining what 'sensitive' means, or rewording the abstract and Conclusion so that a headline finding does not rest on an under-reported exploratory comparison.
  3. [Discussion] The paper's framing treats 'human characteristics' as a factor that shapes perception, but the disabled condition does not clearly instantiate that characteristic. As the authors themselves note in the Discussion, the disabled male walked with crutches yet performed a hand-only task with timing similar to the young actors, and the videos showed no major obstacles in the interaction. This acknowledgment is commendable, but its implication is not carried through to the abstract and Conclusion, which generalize across human characteristics. I recommend either restricting the general claims to the aged condition or providing a stimulus-validation check (for example, ratings of the human partner's apparent task demand) to establish that the disabled condition manipulated what it was intended to manipulate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The notation 'P(M—data)' uses an em-dash where a conditional bar is intended and should read 'P(M|data)'; the same issue appears twice in the H9 results.
  2. [Table 5] The numeric columns of Table 5 are misaligned or garbled (for example, '168 .158', '0 .914', '0 .806', '0 .367'), making the degrees of freedom and the 'p tukey' values unreadable as printed; the table should be reformatted.
  3. [§7.1, Table 6] The exploratory CAM comparisons test many condition-by-scale combinations at alpha = .05 without correction, so the number of significant results is close to what chance would produce; the authors do label these as exploratory, but one sentence stating the expected false-positive rate would help readers calibrate the findings.
  4. [§3.6, §4.2] The decision to aggregate the CAM and control groups is justified by the null group effect, but the manuscript should state explicitly whether this aggregation was planned in advance or decided after inspecting the data, since it doubles the effective sample size for the HRC hypothesis tests.
  5. [§4.2.1] The closing sentence of §4.2.1 ('we suggest that future research on the assessment of handover compared to no-handover conditions especially for elderly collaboration partners of robots is interesting') seems to extend the full-sample handover result to elderly partners without a corresponding analysis; please rephrase or report the elderly-only comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity in the handover/no-handover comparison; the rest of the empirical claims are not circular.

  1. renaming known result [§3.1.1 footnote 3 and §4.2.1 exploratory paired t-test]
    "In the case of the antisocial robot behavior, we omitted the handover condition because we considered antisocial and handover to be mutually exclusive. [...] Participants rated the handover condition more positive (M = 54.67, SD = 8.42) than the no-handover condition (M = 48.04 SD = 8.61), t(111) = 8.81, p < .001."

    By construction, the two paired levels differ in composition: each participant's no-handover mean includes the antisocial video, whereas the handover mean includes only F, I, and M variants. Since the same paper's H2 result establishes that antisocial is rated far worse than all others, the t-test's positive difference is partly algebraic. If there were no true handover effect and all non-antisocial behaviors had mean x while antisocial had mean A, then NH = (3x+A)/4 and H = x, so H - NH = (x-A)/4 > 0. The conclusion that the 'interaction paradigm' drives the effect is therefore a relabeling of the known antisocial effect rather than an independent estimate; the paper's own H6 found no handover benefit for midFluency and only a small one for alternating items.

full rationale

This is an empirical user study rather than a derivation, and most of the paper is free of circularity in the strict sense. The expected-acceptability table (Table 2) is a genuine prior prediction, and the fact that several hypotheses (H4, H5, H7, H8) were not confirmed shows that the hypotheses were not fitted to the data. Self-citations to the authors' prior CAM work ([14,15,34,40]) are not load-bearing for the main claim: the CAM manipulation produced no significant overall effect, and the HRC conclusions pool both groups. The one construct-level circularity is the exploratory handover/no-handover paired t-test in §4.2.1. The design deliberately excludes antisocial behavior from the handover condition (footnote 3), so the contrast is contaminated by the already-established H2 antisocial effect; algebraically, the contrast would be positive even if handover had no causal effect. This affects only the aggregate 'handover more positive' conclusion; the antisocial-behavior finding and the within-behavior alternating-items handover effect retain independent evidence. The Discussion's own acknowledgment that the disabled-male condition may not instantiate meaningful differences is a validity limitation, not a circular step.

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

This is an empirical user study with no fitted parameters or invented entities. The four axioms listed are the load-bearing domain assumptions that connect the video stimuli to real-world robot acceptance; the weakest is the third one, which the authors themselves question in the Discussion.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Observer ratings of videos are a valid proxy for real-world acceptance of human-robot collaboration.
    The study measures third-person evaluation of video stimuli rather than first-person interaction with a real robot; this assumption underlies the entire design in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption A human actor in a morphsuit adequately represents a robot for the purpose of behavior evaluation.
    Section 3.1 states that a human in a morphsuit played the robot because a real robot was not feasible; all conclusions about robot behavior depend on this simulation being accepted by viewers.
  • domain assumption The 'disabled' and 'aged' human conditions meaningfully alter the collaboration demands.
    The disabled actor walked with crutches but the task was hand-based, and the authors concede in the Discussion that the disabled actor's timing was similar to young actors; the human-characteristic effects depend on these conditions actually differing.
  • domain assumption Summing 7-point Likert subscales into a single score yields an interval-scaled overall assessment.
    The analysis uses t-tests and ANOVAs on summed scale scores (Section 3.6), which assumes the summed Likert items approximate interval measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing for Difference: How Human Characteristics Shape Perceptions of Collaborative Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNROHQJ3

@misc{pith2026250716480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing for Difference: How Human Characteristics Shape Perceptions of Collaborative Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNROHQJ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16480}
}
read the original abstract

The development of assistive robots for social collaboration raises critical questions about responsible and inclusive design, especially when interacting with individuals from protected groups such as those with disabilities or advanced age. Currently, research is scarce on how participants assess varying robot behaviors in combination with diverse human needs, likely since participants have limited real-world experience with advanced domestic robots. In the current study, we aim to address this gap while using methods that enable participants to assess robot behavior, as well as methods that support meaningful reflection despite limited experience. In an online study, 112 participants (from both experimental and control groups) evaluated 7 videos from a total of 28 variations of human-robot collaboration types. The experimental group first completed a cognitive-affective mapping (CAM) exercise on human-robot collaboration before providing their ratings. Although CAM reflection did not significantly affect overall ratings, it led to more pronounced assessments for certain combinations of robot behavior and human condition. Most importantly, the type of human-robot collaboration influences the assessment. Antisocial robot behavior was consistently rated as the lowest, while collaboration with aged individuals elicited more sensitive evaluations. Scenarios involving object handovers were viewed more positively than those without them. These findings suggest that both human characteristics and interaction paradigms influence the perceived acceptability of collaborative robots, underscoring the importance of prosocial design. They also highlight the potential of reflective methods, such as CAM, to elicit nuanced feedback, supporting the development of user-centered and socially responsible robotic systems tailored to diverse populations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Human-Centered Reflections on Care Robots: A Comparative Study of Caregiver Perspectives

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Caregivers across the US, Mexico, and Chile accept care robots mostly for logistics and physical assistance, while preferring human oversight for relational tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    Forlizzi, J.: How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, pp. 129–136 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 650325 (2021)

    Hurtado, J.V., Londo˜ no, L., Valada, A.: From learning to relearning: A framework for diminishing bias in social robot navigation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 650325 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Journal of Manufac- turing Systems 63, 392–410 (2022)

    Coronado, E., Kiyokawa, T., Ricardez, G.A.G., Ramirez-Alpizar, I.G., Venture, G., Yamanobe, N.: Evaluating quality in human- robot interaction: A systematic search and classification of performance and human- centered factors, measures and metrics towards an industry 5.0. Journal of Manufac- turing Systems 63, 392–410 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 102926 (2022) ht tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102926

    Inga, J., Ruess, M., Heinrich Robens, J., Nelius, T., Rothfuß, S., Kille, S., Dahlinger, P., Lindenmann, A., Thomaschke, R., Neumann, G., Matthiesen, S., Hohmann, S., Kiesel, A.: Human-machine symbiosis: A multivariate perspective for physically coupled human- machine systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 102926 (2022) ht tps://doi.org...

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    In: International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications, pp

    Xie, B., Xi, X., Zhao, X., Wang, Y., Song, W., Gu, J., Zhu, S.: Chatgpt for robotics: A new approach to human-robot interaction and task planning. In: International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications, pp. 365–376 (2023). Springer

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    i choose... you!

    Correia, F., Petisca, S., Alves-Oliveira, P., Ribeiro, T., Melo, F.S., Paiva, A.: “i choose... you!” membership preferences in human– robot teams. Autonomous Robots43, 359–373 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    MIS Quarterly 48, 1297–1330 (2023)

    You, S., Robert, L., et al.: Trusting and work- ing with robots: A relational demography theory of preference for robotic over human co-workers. MIS Quarterly 48, 1297–1330 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 725780 (2022)

    Mangin, O., Roncone, A., Scassellati, B.: How to be helpful? supportive behaviors and per- sonalization for human-robot collaboration. Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 725780 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Human-computer interac- tion: The agency perspective, 215–240 (2012)

    Kr¨ amer, N.C., P¨ utten, A., Eimler, S.: Human- agent and human-robot interaction theory: similarities to and differences from human- human interaction. Human-computer interac- tion: The agency perspective, 215–240 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Collection of Technical Papers - AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Tech- nical Conference 2 (2004) https://doi.org/10 .2514/6.2004-6434

    Hoffman, G., Breazeal, C.: Collaboration in human-robot teams. Collection of Technical Papers - AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Tech- nical Conference 2 (2004) https://doi.org/10 .2514/6.2004-6434

    2004

  3. [11]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.20 21.692811

    Zoelen, E.M., Bosch, K., Neerincx, M.: Becom- ing team members: Identifying interaction patterns of mutual adaptation for human- robot co-learning. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.20 21.692811

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.02654 (2022) 18

    Londo˜ no, L., R¨ ofer, A., Welschehold, T., Val- ada, A.: Doing right by not doing wrong in human-robot collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.02654 (2022) 18

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    In: Workshops at the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2010)

    Thagard, P.: Empathica: A computer sup- port system with visual representations for cognitive-affective mapping. In: Workshops at the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Politics and the Life Sciences 41(1), 131–139 (2022)

    Reuter, L., Mansell, J., Rhea, C., Kiesel, A.: Direct assessment of individual conno- tation and experience: An introduction to cognitive-affective mapping. Politics and the Life Sciences 41(1), 131–139 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Behavior Research Methods 57, 174 (2025) https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-0 2699-y

    Fenn, J., Gouret, F., Gorki, M., Reuter, L., Gros, W., H¨ uttner, P., Kiesel, A.: Cognitive- affective maps extended logic: Proposing tools to collect and analyze attitudes and belief systems. Behavior Research Methods 57, 174 (2025) https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-0 2699-y

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–52 (2024)

    Ahmed, E., Buruk, O., Hamari, J.: Human– robot companionship: Current trends and future agenda. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–52 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10845-024-02362-x

    Dzedzickis, A., Vaiˇ ci¯ unas, G., Lapkauskait˙ e, K., et al.: Recent advances in human–robot interaction: robophobia or synergy. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2024) https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10845-024-02362-x

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 39(5), 3601–3619 (2023)

    Honerkamp, D., Welschehold, T., Valada, A.: N2 m2: Learning navigation for arbitrary mobile manipulation motions in unseen and dynamic environments. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 39(5), 3601–3619 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(3), 1319–1326 (2023)

    Arce, J., V¨ odisch, N., Cattaneo, D., Burgard, W., Valada, A.: Padloc: Lidar-based deep loop closure detection and registration using panop- tic attention. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(3), 1319–1326 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10147 (2023)

    V¨ odisch, N., Petek, K., Burgard, W., Val- ada, A.: Codeps: Online continual learning for depth estimation and panoptic segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10147 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07343 (2024)

    Chisari, E., Heppert, N., Argus, M., Welschehold, T., Brox, T., Valada, A.: Learn- ing robotic manipulation policies from point clouds with conditional flow matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07343 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 35(5), 2235–2261 (2024)

    Li, W., Hu, Y., Zhou, Y., Pham, D.T.: Safe human–robot collaboration for indus- trial settings: a survey. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 35(5), 2235–2261 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Autonomous robots 42, 957– 975 (2018)

    Ajoudani, A., Zanchettin, A.M., Ivaldi, S., Albu-Sch¨ affer, A., Kosuge, K., Khatib, O.: Progress and prospects of the human–robot collaboration. Autonomous robots 42, 957– 975 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Proceedings of the IEEE (2024)

    Londo˜ no, L., Hurtado, J.V., Hertz, N., Kellmeyer, P., Voeneky, S., Valada, A.: Fair- ness and bias in robot learning. Proceedings of the IEEE (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Inter- national Journal of Social Robotics, 1–22 (2024)

    Janssen, S., Schadenberg, B.R.: A psychologi- cal need-fulfillment perspective for designing social robots that support well-being. Inter- national Journal of Social Robotics, 1–22 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    American Psychologist 55, 68–78 (2000)

    Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic moti- vation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55, 68–78 (2000)

    2000

  19. [27]

    Electronics 12(1), 167 (2022)

    Boschetti, G., Faccio, M., Granata, I.: Human- centered design for productivity and safety in collaborative robots cells: A new method- ological approach. Electronics 12(1), 167 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Multimodal Technologies and Interac- tion 3(1), 8 (2019)

    Bj¨ orling, E.A., Rose, E.: Participatory research principles in human-centered design: engaging teens in the co-design of a social robot. Multimodal Technologies and Interac- tion 3(1), 8 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Human factors 64(3), 441– 450 (2022)

    Rogers, W.A., Kadylak, T., Bayles, M.A.: Maximizing the benefits of participatory design for human–robot interaction research with older adults. Human factors 64(3), 441– 450 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the 19 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, pp

    Lee, H.R., ˇSabanovi´ c, S., Chang, W.-L., Nagata, S., Piatt, J., Bennett, C., Hakken, D.: Steps toward participatory design of social robots: mutual learning with older adults with depression. In: Proceedings of the 19 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Int...

    2017

  23. [31]

    Psychological Review 55(4), 189–208 (1948) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061626

    Tolman, E.C.: Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review 55(4), 189–208 (1948) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061626

    1948 doi

  24. [32]

    Interna- tional Journal of Man-Machine Studies 24(1), 65–75 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/S002 0-7373(86)80040-2

    Kosko, B.: Fuzzy cognitive maps. Interna- tional Journal of Man-Machine Studies 24(1), 65–75 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1016/S002 0-7373(86)80040-2

    1986 doi

  25. [33]

    Sage Open 4(1), 2158244014526210 (2014)

    Homer-Dixon, T., Milkoreit, M., Mock, S.J., Schr¨ oder, T., Thagard, P.: The concep- tual structure of social disputes: Cognitive- affective maps as a tool for conflict analysis and resolution. Sage Open 4(1), 2158244014526210 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Technology in Society 78, 102651 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024 .102651

    Gros, W., Reuter, L., Sprich, J., Schuldzinski, D., Fenn, J., Kiesel, A.: Cognitive-affective maps (cams) as measurement tool – elabora- tion of quantitative and qualitative test-retest reliability. Technology in Society 78, 102651 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024 .102651

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    In: Fludernik, M., J¨ urgasch, T

    Nothdurft, U., Kreil, A., Kiesel, A., Thomaschke, R.: Die kognitiv-affektive kartierung des begriffs muße. In: Fludernik, M., J¨ urgasch, T. (eds.) Semantiken der Muße aus Interdisziplin¨ aren Perspektiven, pp. 127–159. Mohr Siebeck, T¨ ubingen (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Frontiers in Psychology 12, 2082 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsy g.2021.663627

    Mansell, J., Reuter, L., Rhea, C., Kiesel, A.: A novel network approach to capture cog- nition and affect: Covid-19 experiences in canada and germany. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 2082 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsy g.2021.663627

    2021

  29. [37]

    The Anthropocene Review (2022) https://do i.org/10.1177/20530196221078924

    Livanec, S., Stumpf, M., Reuter, L., Fenn, J., Kiesel, A.: Who’s gonna use this? Accep- tance prediction of emerging technologies with Cognitive-Affective Mapping and transdisci- plinary considerations in the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review (2022) https://do i.org/10.117...

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Titel avalaible at https: //www.psychologie.uni-freiburg.de/abteilu ngen/Allgemeine.Psychologie/research/cam -research/diss reuter

    Reuter, L.: Bridging Over the Troubled Waters of Quantitative and Qualitative Meth- ods: Exploring Cognitive-Affective Maps in Empirical Research. Titel avalaible at https: //www.psychologie.uni-freiburg.de/abteilu ngen/Allgemeine.Psychologie/research/cam -research/diss reuter...

    2022

  31. [39]

    https://www.psychologie.uni-freiburg.de/a bteilungen/Allgemeine.Psychologie/research /cam-research

    CAM-Research - Information, Publications. https://www.psychologie.uni-freiburg.de/a bteilungen/Allgemeine.Psychologie/research /cam-research. [Accessed 17-04-2025]

    2025

  32. [40]

    Computer soft- ware (2022)

    Gouret, F., Fenn, J., Kiesel, A.: Cognitive- affective maps extended logic. Computer soft- ware (2022). https://github.com/CAMgalaxy /CAMgalaxy.github.io

    2022

  33. [41]

    International Journal of Marketing Studies 5(6), 25–37 (2013) https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v5n6p25

    Ting, S.-C.: Service fairness scale: Develop- ment, validation, and structure. International Journal of Marketing Studies 5(6), 25–37 (2013) https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v5n6p25

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    Decision Sciences 38(1), 107–130 (2007) https://doi.or g/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00150.x

    Carr, C.L.: The FAIRSERV model: Consumer reactions to services based on a multidimen- sional evaluation of service fairness. Decision Sciences 38(1), 107–130 (2007) https://doi.or g/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00150.x

    2007

  35. [43]

    Sindhav, B., Holland, J., Rodie, A.R., Adi- dam, P.T., Pol, L.G.: The impact of perceived fairness on satisfaction: Are airport security measures fair? does it matter? Journal of Mar- keting Theory and Practice 14(4), 323–335 (2006) https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6 679140406

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    In: Ger- gen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S., Willis, R.H

    Leventhal, G.S.: What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Ger- gen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S., Willis, R.H. (eds.) Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, pp. 27–55. Springer, Boston, MA (1980). https://...

    1980 doi

  37. [45]

    In: Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H., Bazerman, M.H

    Bies, R.J., Moag, J.S.: Interactional jus- tice: Communication criteria for fairness. In: Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H., Bazerman, M.H. (eds.) Research on Negotiation in Orga- nizations, pp. 43–55. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT (1986)

    1986

  38. [46]

    MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989) https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived 20 ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989) https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

    1989 doi

  39. [47]

    In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (HRI), pp

    Baraglia, J., Cakmak, M., Nagai, Y., Rao, R., Asada, M.: Initiative in robot assistance during collaborative task execution. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 67–74 (2016). IEEE

    2016

  40. [48]

    IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Sys- tems 49(3), 209–218 (2019) h t t p s : //doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2019.2904558

    Hoffman, G.: Evaluating fluency in human–robot collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Sys- tems 49(3), 209–218 (2019) h t t p s : //doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2019.2904558

    2019

  41. [49]

    MIS Quar- terly 27(3), 425–478 (2003) https://doi.org/ 10.2307/30036540

    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quar- terly 27(3), 425–478 (2003) https://doi.org/ 10.2307/30036540

    2003 doi

  42. [50]

    Bartneck, C., Kuli´ c, D., Croft, E., Zoghbi, S.: Measurement instruments for the anthro- pomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 71– 81 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-0 08-000...

    2009 doi

Pith tools

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