Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 85 references

Knowledge Isn't Power: The Ethics of Social Robots and the Difficulty of Informed Consent

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Social robots can defeat informed consent even when users know the truth.

desk verdict Worth a serious referee: a coherent legal-ethical reframing of social robot consent, undercut partly by a self-contradiction about the one study it leans on. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07942 v1 pith:3KD5KXNK submitted 2025-09-09 cs.HC cs.RO

James M. Berzuk , Lauren Corcoran , Brannen McKenzie-Lefurgey , Katie Szilagyi , James E. Young This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.RO
keywords human-robotinteractionsocialroboticsinformedconsentrobotdeceptionanthropomorphismautonomyethicslaw&technology
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 tries to show that social robots are not just another persuasive technology: their lifelike social signals, physical embodiment, and concealed computational power together create a situation in which users cannot reliably make informed, autonomous decisions. The authors argue that disclosure alone fails because people's automatic social responses to a robot's presence persist even when they know the robot is a machine; as they put it, knowledge is not inherently power. If this is right, designers cannot satisfy ethical obligations by providing information, and legal frameworks built on 'buyer beware' or a simple meeting of the minds do not fit human-robot interaction. The paper therefore proposes two design goals—reduce the incongruence between a robot's appearance and its actual capabilities, and preserve genuine human autonomy—and tests these ideas against a case study of a social robot used with a child with autism.

What carries the argument

The paper's central device is the paired concept of design congruence and perceptual congruence. Design congruence is the alignment between a robot's outward appearance and behavior and its true capabilities; perceptual congruence is the alignment between the user's understanding of the interaction and its technical reality. The argument runs: a robot's design creates incongruence (e.g., smiling without friendliness, eyes that do not see, sensors hidden outside visible eyes), which produces perceptual incongruence in the user; that incongruence, combined with restrictions on autonomy (automation bias, social trust, parasocial relationships, dark patterns), makes informed consent invalid. The

What would settle it

An experiment that gives one group of participants a thorough, concrete explanation of a robot's true sensing, computation, and persuasion capabilities (including live demonstrations of its limitations) and compares their compliance, emotional response, and self-disclosure with a control group given standard minimal disclosure. If the thoroughly informed group shows no reduction in influence, the paper's central claim is supported; if the influence largely disappears, the claim that knowledge is not power would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that social robots occupy a unique ethical and legal space where informed consent cannot be presumed. Their designed sociality activates entrenched biological instincts; their physicality intensifies responses compared with virtual agents; and their superhuman sensing, data access, and computation are hidden by lifelike designs that promise reciprocity the robot cannot honor. These factors produce perceptual incongruence—the user's understanding of the interaction does not match its technical reality—and restrict autonomy through automation bias and social trust. Because even properly informed people continue to comply with, confide in, and form parasocial bonds with rob

Load-bearing premise

That even fully informed people cannot reliably override their automatic social responses to a physically present, lifelike robot, so knowledge does not restore the autonomy needed for valid consent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, providing users with information—disclosures, warnings, consent forms—cannot by itself make social robot interaction ethical.
  • Designers should treat a robot's deceptive features as a risk to be balanced and minimized, and should limit incongruence to areas irrelevant to the user's consent decision.
  • Legal doctrines that presume in-person interaction gives people enough information (e.g., mistaken identity, meeting of the minds) should not be applied to social robots without adjustment.
  • The affirmative duties recognized in tort law for relationships with power imbalance should extend to those who design and deploy social robots, especially with vulnerable users.
  • Context-specific frameworks, not one-size-fits-all rules, are needed for robots that intentionally modify user behavior, such as socially assistive robots for children with autism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's logic implies that any embodied social agent with hidden sensing or data access—voice assistants, AI companions, even some toys—faces the same consent problem, with physical presence setting the strength of the effect.
  • A direct test of the central claim would compare compliance and self-disclosure across disclosure conditions (none, detailed technical disclosure, ongoing reminders) to measure how much knowledge actually changes behavior.
  • The design-congruence framing suggests a practical audit method: before deployment, map every presented social cue against the actual sensor, actuator, and data capability behind it, and flag mismatches as consent-relevant features.
  • If vulnerability is dynamic rather than a fixed status, regulators should consider assessing interaction contexts and design choices as creating vulnerability, rather than defining protected classes of users once.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper argues that social robots, by combining designed sociality, physical embodiment, and hidden computational capabilities, constitute a unique interaction context that undermines users' ability to give informed consent. Drawing on Canadian/common-law doctrines of contract, tort, and informed consent, and on the HRI ethics literature, it claims that even properly informed users may be unable to override anthropomorphic responses, so 'knowledge is not inherently power' (§3.4). From this analysis the authors derive two design goals: minimize incongruence between robot design and perceived/actual capabilities, and preserve genuine human autonomy in interaction. A NAO robot for children with ASD is used as a recurring case study to illustrate the legal and ethical concerns.

Significance. If the central empirical premise is accepted, the paper offers a valuable reconceptualization: informed consent in HRI should be treated as a design property rather than a disclosure formality. The interdisciplinary synthesis is generally careful: the authors explicitly acknowledge jurisdictional limits, distinguish staged demonstrations from realistic robot influence, and incorporate the dynamic-vulnerability point from DiPaola and Calo. The two-factor framework (congruence and autonomy, Fig. 1) is a useful organizing device, and the paper is not circular in the derivation sense: the design goals are synthesized from independent legal and ethical sources. The main risk is that the load-bearing empirical premise—that knowledge does not restore autonomy—is under-supported and, in one place, internally inconsistent. The paper candidly notes its own limits (no empirical datasets; some cited studies are scripted), which helps the reader, but those self-identified limits also define the gap that needs repair.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1 vs. §3.4] The paper's central empirical premise—that informed users still cannot resist robot social pressure—is anchored in the obedience study [16], presented in §3.4 as showing that 'knowledge is not inherently power' and used in §3.1 as evidence about compliance. However, §1 explicitly characterizes the research thread containing [16] as 'sensational,' 'scripted and staged,' with 'robots and automated behaviors not feasible or plausible in the real world.' This is a direct internal inconsistency. If [16] is not a realistic demonstration, it cannot bear the weight the later sections place on it. The manuscript must either reclassify [16] as a deliberately exaggerated illustration and rebuild the empirical case from more ecologically valid studies (e.g., [50], [5]), or explain why [16] should not be dismissed at the outset. As written, the paper appears to rely on evidence it itself disqualifies
  2. [§2.1–§2.2, §3.4] The paper generalizes from a narrow and partly self-cited evidence base to strong claims such as 'Even when properly informed about the nature of the robot, people may be unable to resist forming such a relationship' (§2.1) and 'no matter how informed they are' (§2.2). The cited studies are few, several from the authors' own laboratory, and boundary conditions are not discussed: task stakes, repeated exposure, transparency interventions, individual differences, and cultural context could all moderate the effect. The argument only needs the weaker claim that information is necessary but not sufficient in some practically important cases; that weaker claim is well supported by privacy self-management [60] and parasociality [39]. The manuscript should calibrate the 'knowledge is not power' thesis accordingly and explicitly state when information can restore autonomy.
  3. [§5.1.3] The paper states that perceptual incongruence is 'inherent' in social robots and 'at odds with full insight' (§5.1.2), yet its first design goal is only to 'mitigate' incongruence 'as much as possible.' If informed consent requires understanding and internalization, as §3.3 argues, then mitigation alone cannot be said to produce valid informed consent; it merely reduces harm. The paper should clarify whether it is arguing that valid informed consent in HRI is strictly impossible (in which case the design goals are damage control) or that it can be approached asymptotically (in which case a threshold or criterion must be specified). Without this clarification, the design goals are not actionable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References [56]/[57]] References [56] and [57] are the same Shim & Arkin taxonomy; one should be removed or the two citations differentiated.
  2. [References [58]/[59]] References [58] and [59] are the same Simion et al. chapter; merge them or use distinct citation labels.
  3. [Conclusion] The conclusion's 'anamorphism' should be 'animorphism.' Also, 'if interaction with a social robot' should be 'for interaction with a social robot.'
  4. [Fig. 1] The label text in Fig. 1 is garbled in the manuscript ('In or ed onsent...'); the figure needs a clean typeset version.
  5. [§3.3] The sentence 'The ability to internalize information, then, is a necessary precondition' appears twice in §3.3; one occurrence should be deleted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the informed-consent argument rests on external legal and empirical sources, with only non-load-bearing self-citations and an evidentiary inconsistency between §§1 and 3.4.

full rationale

This is a legal-ethics synthesis, not a predictive derivation: it draws on external case law (Donoghue v. Stevenson, Reibl v. Hughes), medical-consent scholarship (Kottow, Pullman, Pope), and independent HRI studies (Bainbridge, Robinette, Salem, and others) to argue that social robots create perceptual incongruence and constrain autonomy. The claim that 'knowledge is not inherently power' is a conclusion, not a tautology: it is supported by the gap between information provision and internalization documented in privacy self-management (Solove) and by the design-incongruence argument in §5.1. The self-citations ([16], [50], [52], [68]) are used as empirical examples or prior perspective statements; none is a theorem or an exclusive premise whose acceptance entails the target claim. The skeptical observation that §1 labels the obedience study [16] as 'scripted and staged' and 'not feasible or plausible in the real world,' while §3.4 presents the same study as the key demonstration that 'knowledge is not inherently power,' is a genuine evidentiary tension, but it is an internal-consistency or correctness concern, not a circular reduction: the conclusion is not defined as the input, and the broader argument would stand or fall on the entire empirical record. Accordingly, no circularity is exhibited; the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation and the noted evidential inconsistency.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces conceptual constructs such as design congruence and perceptual congruence, but these are framing devices rather than physical or empirical entities. Its argument rests on empirical and normative premises about human psychology, legal consent standards, and the transferability of legal doctrine to HRI, all of which are reasonable but not independently established in this paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Humans have entrenched biological social instincts that respond to lifelike movement and appearance as if interacting with a living being.
    Invoked throughout Section 2 to argue that animorphism is difficult to override; based on infant gaze-following and abstract-motion studies [35, 59, 22].
  • domain assumption Informed consent requires not just disclosure but understanding and internalization of the information.
    From medical and legal scholarship [44, 45]; this is the standard that makes knowledge 'not power' and is central to the paper's normative argument.
  • domain assumption Physical embodiment and collocated presence intensify social responses beyond what virtual agents produce.
    Section 2.2 relies on [25, 2, 52, 33]; load-bearing for treating robots as a unique category requiring new consent standards.
  • domain assumption Legal analogies from contract, tort, and medical informed consent are transferable to human-robot interaction.
    Section 3 explicitly applies these doctrines; the transfer is argued but not proven, and the paper acknowledges jurisdiction-specific limits.
  • domain assumption There is a lack of prior literature addressing informed consent in HRI comprehensively.
    Stated in Section 5 as the gap the paper fills; it is plausible but not demonstrated via systematic review.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knowledge Isn't Power: The Ethics of Social Robots and the Difficulty of Informed Consent." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KD5KXNK

@misc{pith2026250907942,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knowledge Isn't Power: The Ethics of Social Robots and the Difficulty of Informed Consent},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KD5KXNK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07942}
}
read the original abstract

Contemporary robots are increasingly mimicking human social behaviours to facilitate interaction, such as smiling to signal approachability, or hesitating before taking an action to allow people time to react. Such techniques can activate a person's entrenched social instincts, triggering emotional responses as though they are interacting with a fellow human, and can prompt them to treat a robot as if it truly possesses the underlying life-like processes it outwardly presents, raising significant ethical questions. We engage these issues through the lens of informed consent: drawing upon prevailing legal principles and ethics, we examine how social robots can influence user behaviour in novel ways, and whether under those circumstances users can be appropriately informed to consent to these heightened interactions. We explore the complex circumstances of human-robot interaction and highlight how it differs from more familiar interaction contexts, and we apply legal principles relating to informed consent to social robots in order to reconceptualize the current ethical debates surrounding the field. From this investigation, we synthesize design goals for robot developers to achieve more ethical and informed human-robot interaction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Geiskkovitch, Derek Cormier, Stela H

    Denise Y. Geiskkovitch, Derek Cormier, Stela H. Seo, and James E. Young. 2016. Please continue, we need more data: an exploration of obedience to robots. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 5, 1 (March 2016), 82–99

    2016

  2. [50]

    Seo, Diljot Garcha, James E

    Elaheh Sanoubari, Stela H. Seo, Diljot Garcha, James E. Young, and Veronica Loureiro -Rodriguez. 2019. Good Robot Design or Machiavellian? An In-the-Wild Robot Leveraging Minimal Knowledge of Passersby’s Culture. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human -Robot Interaction (HRI), March 22,

    work page 2019

  3. [5]

    Serena Booth, James Tompkin, Hanspeter Pfister, Jim Waldo, Krzysztof Gajos, and Radhika Nagpal. 2017. Piggybacking Robots: Human-Robot Overtrust in University Dormitory Security. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’17), March 06, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 426–434...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [60]

    Daniel J. Solove. 2013. Introduction: Privacy Self -Management and the Consent Dilemma. Harv. Law Rev. 126, 7 (2013), 1880–1903

    work page 2013

  5. [39]

    Nurhafihz Noor, Sally Rao Hill, and Indrit Troshani. 2021. Artificial Intelligence Service Agents: Role of Parasocial Relationship. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. (September 2021), 1 –15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2021.1962213

    work page arXiv 2021

  6. [1]

    Henri François d’Aguesseau, Robert Pothier, Guillaume Le Trosne, and William Evans. 1853. A treatise on the law of obligations, or contracts: translated from the French, with an introduction, appendix, and notes illustrative of the English law on the subject, by William David Evans (3rd ed.). R.H. Small, Philadelphia

  7. [2]

    Bainbridge, Justin W

    Wilma A. Bainbridge, Justin W. Hart, Elizabeth S. Kim, and Brian Scassellati. 2011. The Benefits of Interac- tions with Physically Present Robots over Video -Displayed Agents. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3, 1 (January 2011), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7

    doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0082-7 2011

  8. [3]

    Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!

    Christoph Bartneck, Michel van der Hoek, Omar Mubin, and Abdullah Al Mahmud. 2007. “Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do!” switching off a robot. In 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human - Robot Interaction (HRI), March 2007. 217–222

    2007

Show all 85 references
  1. [4]

    Bohm, Edward J

    Allison S. Bohm, Edward J. George, Bennett Cyphers, and Shirley Lu. 2018. Privacy and Liberty in an Al- ways-On, Always -Listening World. Sci. Technol. Law Rev. 19, 1 (January 2018). https://doi.org/10.7916/stlr.v19i1.4753

    2018 doi

  2. [6]

    Cynthia Breazeal. 2003. Toward sociable robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42, 3 –4 (March 2003), 167 –175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1

    2003 doi

  3. [7]

    William J. Brown. 2015. Examining Four Processes of Audience Involvement With Media Personae: Trans- portation, Parasocial Interaction, Identification, and Worship. Commun. Theory 25, 3 (2015), 259 –283. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12053

    2015 doi

  4. [8]

    Federico Cabitza. 2019. Biases Affecting Human Decision Making in AI-Supported Second Opinion Settings. In Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 2019. Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-...

    2019 doi

  5. [9]

    Carlo Casonato. 2021. AI and Constitutionalism: The Challenges Ahead. In Reflections on Artificial Intelli- gence for Humanity , Bertrand Braunschweig and Malik Ghallab (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69128-8_9

    2021 doi

  6. [10]

    Cross and Richard Ramsey

    Emily S. Cross and Richard Ramsey. 2021. Mind Meets Machine: Towards a Cognitive Science of Human– Machine Interactions. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25, 3 (March 2021), 200 –212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.009

    2021 doi

  7. [11]

    John Danaher. 2020. Robot Betrayal: a guide to the ethics of robotic deception. Ethics Inf. Technol. 22, 2 (June 2020), 117–128. https://doi-org.uml.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09520-3

    2020 doi

  8. [12]

    Kate Darling. 2016. Extending legal protection to social robots: The effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. In Robot Law . Edward Elgar Publishing, 213 –232. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783476732.00017

    2016

  9. [13]

    Daniella DiPaola and Ryan Calo. 2024. Socio-Digital Vulnerability. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4686874

    2024 doi

  10. [14]

    Elizabeth Dula, Andres Rosero, and Elizabeth Phillips. 2023. Identifying Dark Patterns in Social Robot Be- havior. In 2023 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS) , April 2023. 7 –12. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIEDS58326.2023.10137912

    2023

  11. [15]

    Cacioppo

    Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: A three -factor theory of an- thropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114, (2007), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864

    2007 doi

  12. [17]

    Ella Glikson and Anita Williams Woolley. 2020. Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14, 2 (July 2020), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057

    2020

  13. [18]

    Maartje M. A. de Graaf. 2016. An Ethical Evaluation of Human–Robot Relationships. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 8, 4 (August 2016), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0368-5

    2016 doi

  14. [19]

    John Harris and Ehud Sharlin. 2011. Exploring the affect of abstract motion in social human-robot interaction. In 2011 RO-MAN, July 2011. 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2011.6005254

    2011

  15. [20]

    Woodrow Hartzog. 2014. Unfair and Deceptive Robots. Md. Law Rev. 74, (2015 2014), 785

    2014

  16. [21]

    Frank Hegel, Claudia Muhl, Britta Wrede, Martina Hielscher-Fastabend, and Gerhard Sagerer. 2009. Under- standing Social Robots. In 2009 Second International Conferences on Advances in Computer -Human Inter- actions, February 2009. IEEE, 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACHI.2009.51

    2009 doi

  17. [22]

    Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel. 1944. An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior. Am. J. Psychol. 57, 2 (1944), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416950

    1944 doi

  18. [23]

    Ying Hu. 2018. Robot Criminals. Univ. Mich. J. Law Reform 52, (2019 2018), 487

    2018

  19. [24]

    Kumju Hwang and Qi Zhang. 2018. Influence of parasocial relationship between digital celebrities and their followers on followers’ purchase and electronic word-of-mouth intentions, and persuasion knowledge. Com- put. Hum. Behav. 87, (October 2018), 155–173. https://doi.org/10....

    2018 doi

  20. [25]

    Younbo Jung and Kwan Min Lee. 2004. Effects of Physical Embodiment on Social Presence of Social Robots. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Workshop on Presence, 2004. Valencia, Spain, 80–87

    2004

  21. [26]

    Kahn, Aimee L

    Peter H. Kahn, Aimee L. Reichert, Heather E. Gary, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Solace Shen, Jolina H. Ruckert, and Brian Gill. 2011. The new ontological category hypothesis in human -robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human -robot in...

    2011

  22. [27]

    Kaminski, Matthew Rueben, William D

    Margot E. Kaminski, Matthew Rueben, William D. Smart, and Cindy M. Grimm. 2016. Averting Robot Eyes. Md. Law Rev. 76, (2017 2016), 983

    2016

  23. [28]

    Radical Extremism

    Ian Kerr. 2010. Digital Locks and the Automation of Virtue. In “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copy- right”: Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda, Michael Geist (ed.). Irwin Law, Toronto, 247–303

    2010

  24. [29]

    Ian R. Kerr. 2003. Bots, Babes and the Californication of Commerce. Univ. Ott. Law Technol. J. 1, (2004 2003), 285–324

    2003

  25. [30]

    M Kottow. 2004. The battering of informed consent. J. Med. Ethics 30, 6 (December 2004), 565 –569. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2003.002949

    2004 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Martin Kratz. 2020. When is a Contract of Adhesion Unconscionable? Slaw. Retrieved October 21, 2024 from https://www.slaw.ca/2020/08/05/when-is-a-contract-of-adhesion-unconscionable/

    2020

  27. [32]

    Landes and Richard A

    William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner. 1981. An economic theory of intentional torts. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 1, 2 (December 1981), 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8188(81)90012-0

    1981 doi

  28. [33]

    Jamy Li. 2015. The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. Int. J. Hum. -Comput. Stud. 77, (May 2015), 23 –37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.001

    2015 doi

  29. [34]

    Darian Meacham and Matthew Studley. 2017. Could a Robot Care? It’s All in the Movement. In Robot Ethics 2.0. Oxford University Press, New York, 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190652951.003.0007

    2017

  30. [35]

    Meltzoff, Rechele Brooks, Aaron P

    Andrew N. Meltzoff, Rechele Brooks, Aaron P. Shon, and Rajesh P. N. Rao. 2010. “Social” robots are psy- chological agents for infants: A test of gaze following. Neural Netw. 23, 8 (October 2010), 966 –972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2010.09.005

    2010 doi

  31. [36]

    Merz and Baruch Fischhoff

    Jon F. Merz and Baruch Fischhoff. 1990. Informed consent does not mean rational consent: Cognitive limi- tations on decision‐making. J. Leg. Med. 11, 3 (September 1990), 321 –350. https://doi.org/10.1080/01947649009510831

    1990 doi

  32. [37]

    Ajung Moon, Maneezhay Hashmi, H. F. Machiel Van Der Loos, Elizabeth A. Croft, and Aude Billard. 2021. Design of Hesitation Gestures for Nonverbal Human -Robot Negotiation of Conflicts. ACM Trans. Hum. - Robot Interact. 10, 3 (July 2021), 24:1-24:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3418302

    2021 doi

  33. [38]

    Youngme Moon. 2000. Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self‐Disclosure From Consumers. J. Consum. Res. 26, 4 (March 2000), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1086/209566

    2000 doi

  34. [40]

    Cathy O’Neil. 2017. Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democ- racy (First paperback edition. ed.). Broadway Books, New York, NY

    2017

  35. [41]

    O. O’Neill. 2003. Some Limits of Informed Consent. J. Med. Ethics 29, 1 (2003), 4–7

    2003

  36. [42]

    Parliament of Canada. 2024. Criminal Code, Section 22(1) . Retrieved October 21, 2024 from https://laws - lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-22.html

    2024

  37. [43]

    Elizabeth Phillips, Xuan Zhao, Daniel Ullman, and Bertram F. Malle. 2018. What is Human -like?: Decom- posing Robots’ Human-like Appearance Using the Anthropomorphic roBOT (ABOT) Database. In 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), March 2...

    2018

  38. [44]

    Thaddeus Mason Pope. 2019. Informed Consent Requires Understanding: Complete Disclosure Is Not Enough. Am. J. Bioeth. 19, (2019), 27

    2019

  39. [45]

    Daryl Pullman. 2001. Subject Comprehension, Standards of Information Disclosure and Potential Liability in Research. Health Law J. (2001), 113–117

    2001

  40. [46]

    Neil M Richards and William D Smart. 2016. How should the law think about robots? In Robot Law, Ryan Calo, A Michael Froomkin and Ian Kerr (eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 3 –22. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783476732.00007

    2016

  41. [47]

    Howard, and Alan R

    Paul Robinette, Wenchen Li, Robert Allen, Ayanna M. Howard, and Alan R. Wagner. 2016. Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human - Robot Interaction (HRI), March 2016. 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451740

    2016

  42. [48]

    Julia Rosén, Jessica Lindblom, and Erik Billing. 2022. The Social Robot Expectation Gap Evaluation Frame- work. In Human-Computer Interaction. Technological Innovation (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ),

    2022

  43. [49]

    Maha Salem, Gabriella Lakatos, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. Would You Trust a (Faulty) Robot? Effects of Error, Task Type and Personality on Human -Robot Cooperation and Trust. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Hu...

    2015

  44. [51]

    Schramm, Derek Dufault, and James E

    Lena T. Schramm, Derek Dufault, and James E. Young. 2020. Warning: This robot is not what it seems! exploring expectation discrepancy resulting from robot design. ACMIEEE Int. Conf. Hum. -Robot Interact. Figure 2 (2020), 439–441. https://doi.org/10.1145/3371382.3378280

    2020

  45. [52]

    Seo, Denise Geiskkovitch, Masayuki Nakane, Corey King, and James E

    Stela H. Seo, Denise Geiskkovitch, Masayuki Nakane, Corey King, and James E. Young. 2015. Poor Thing! Would You Feel Sorry for a Simulated Robot? A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human -Robot Int...

    2015

  46. [53]

    Syamimi Shamsuddin, Hanafiah Yussof, Luthffi Idzhar Ismail, Salina Mohamed, Fazah Akhtar Hanapiah, and Nur Ismarrubie Zahari. 2012. Initial Response in HRI- a Case Study on Evaluation of Child with Autism Spectrum Disorders Interacting with a Humanoid Robot NAO. Procedia Eng. ...

    2012 doi

  47. [54]

    Amanda Sharkey and Noel Sharkey. 2021. We need to talk about deception in social robotics! Ethics Inf. Technol. 23, 3 (September 2021), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09573-9

    2021 doi

  48. [55]

    Noel Sharkey and Amanda Sharkey. 2010. Living with robots: Ethical tradeoffs in eldercare. In Close En- gagements with Artificial Companions . John Benjamins, 245 –256. Retrieved July 14, 2022 from https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288400-nlp.8.29sha

    2010

  49. [57]

    Jaeeun Shim and Ronald C Arkin. 2013. A Taxonomy of Robot Deception and Its Benefits in HRI. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics , 2013. 2328 –2335. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2013.398

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    Francesca Simion, Elisa Di Giorgio, Irene Leo, and Lara Bardi. 2011. The processing of social stimuli in early infancy. In Progress in Brain Research . Elsevier, 173 –193. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978 -0-444-53884- 0.00024-5

    2011 doi

  51. [61]

    Robert Sparrow and Linda Sparrow. 2006. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach. 16, 2 (October 2006), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6

    2006 doi

  52. [62]

    Nynke Tromp, Paul Hekkert, and Peter -Paul Verbeek. 2011. Design for Socially Responsible Behavior: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience. Des. Issues 27, 3 (2011), 3–19

    2011

  53. [63]

    Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2006. Materializing Morality. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 31, 3 (May 2006), 361 –380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905285847

    2006 doi

  54. [64]

    Katie Watson. 2013. Teaching the Tyranny of the Form: Informed Consent in Person and on Paper. Narrat. Inq. Bioeth. 3, 1 (2013), 31–34

    2013

  55. [65]

    Adam Waytz, John Cacioppo, and Nicholas Epley. 2010. Who Sees Human?: The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5, 3 (May 2010), 219 –232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336

    2010 doi

  56. [66]

    Langdon Winner. 1986. Do Artifacts have Politics? In The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology, Langdon Winner (ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 19–39

    1986

  57. [67]

    Gary Chan Kok Yew. 2021. Trust in and Ethical Design of Carebots: The Case for Ethics of Care. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 13, 4 (July 2021), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00653-w

    2021 doi

  58. [68]

    James Young. 2021. Danger! This robot may be trying to manipulate you. Sci. Robot. 6, 58 (September 2021). https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIROBOTICS.ABK3479/ASSET/78116656-C3F4-4AD3-A100- FEE563752A9A/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/SCIROBOTICS.ABK3479-F1.JPG

    2021

  59. [69]

    Young, JaYoung Sung, Amy Voida, Ehud Sharlin, Takeo Igarashi, Henrik I

    James E. Young, JaYoung Sung, Amy Voida, Ehud Sharlin, Takeo Igarashi, Henrik I. Christensen, and Re- becca E. Grinter. 2011. Evaluating Human -Robot Interaction: Focusing on the Holistic Interaction Experi- ence. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3, 1 (January 2011), 53–67. https://doi.org...

    2011 doi

  60. [70]

    Boyol Ngan

    Chung-En Yu and Henrique F. Boyol Ngan. 2019. The power of head tilts: gender and cultural differences of perceived human vs human -like robot smile in service. Tour. Rev. 74, 3 (January 2019), 428 –442. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-07-2018-0097

    2019 doi

  61. [71]

    Abaid Ullah Zafar, Jiangnan Qiu, and Mohsin Shahzad. 2020. Do digital celebrities’ relationships and social climate matter? Impulse buying in f -commerce. Internet Res. 30, 6 (2020), 1731 –1762. https://doi - org.uml.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/INTR-04-2019-0142

    2020 doi

  62. [72]

    Jakub Złotowski, Diane Proudfoot, Kumar Yogeeswaran, and Christoph Bartneck. 2015. Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human –Robot Interaction. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7, 3 (June 2015), 347 –360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6

    2015 doi

  63. [73]

    Jakub Złotowski, Hidenobu Sumioka, Friederike Eyssel, Shuichi Nishio, Christoph Bartneck, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2018. Model of Dual Anthropomorphism: The Relationship Between the Media Equation Effect and Implicit Anthropomorphism. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 10, 5 (November 2018), 70...

    2018 doi

  64. [74]

    Halushka v University of Saskatchewan et al

    1965. Halushka v University of Saskatchewan et al

    1965

  65. [75]

    Menow v Jordan House Ltd

    1974. Menow v Jordan House Ltd

    1974

  66. [76]

    Reibl v Hughes

    1980. Reibl v Hughes

    1980

  67. [77]

    Crocker v

    1988. Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd

    1988

  68. [78]

    Stevenson, [1932] A.C

    Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.)

    1932

  69. [79]

    Ouston, [1941] A.C

    Scammell v. Ouston, [1941] A.C. 251. (H.L.)

    1941

  70. [80]

    Shoe Lane Parking Ltd

    Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. [1971] 1 All E.R. 686 (C.A.)

    1971

  71. [81]

    Cundy v Lindsay, (1878) 3 App Cas 458 HL

  72. [82]

    Averay [1971] 3 W.L.R

    Lewis v. Averay [1971] 3 W.L.R. 603

    1971

  73. [83]

    Nature of tort law

    Torts, “Nature of tort law” at HTO-1 (2020 Reissue). Halsbury’s Laws of Canada (Online)

    2020

  74. [84]

    Lockwood, [1932] O.R

    Kenny v. Lockwood, [1932] O.R. 141

    1932

  75. [85]

    Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16

    2020

  76. [2019]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673326

    IEEE, 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673326

    2019

  77. [2022]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05409-9_43

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, 590–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05409-9_43

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.