pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.22271 · v2 · pith:LSFKVH2Qnew · submitted 2025-09-26 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.RO

Human Autonomy and Sense of Agency in Human-Robot Interaction: A Systematic Literature Review

Felix Glawe , Tim Schmeckel , Philipp Brauner , Martina Ziefle This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 07:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.RO
keywords human-robot interactionautonomysense of agencysystematic reviewthematic synthesisrobot designuser well-being
0
0 comments X

The pith

A review of 22 studies identifies five clusters of factors that shape human autonomy and sense of agency during interactions with robots.

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

The paper synthesizes empirical work on how robots affect users' autonomy and sense of agency, concepts tied to motivation and ethical robot use. From an initial set of 728 articles it selects 22 studies published between 2011 and 2024 and applies thematic synthesis. This yields five clusters—robot adaptiveness, communication style, anthropomorphism, robot presence, and individual differences—that appear to influence perceptions measured by scales or the intentional binding paradigm. The findings span industrial, educational, healthcare, and hospitality contexts and note that the two concepts are theoretically distinct yet often used interchangeably. The review concludes that current evidence is limited and calls for clearer definitions and more research to support autonomy-preserving robot designs.

Core claim

Thematic synthesis of the 22 studies reveals five clusters of potentially influential factors: robot adaptiveness, communication style, anthropomorphism, presence of a robot, and individual differences. Perceptions of autonomy and agency vary across settings and are assessed with psychometric scales or the intentional binding paradigm. The paper underscores theoretical differences between autonomy and agency while observing their entangled application in HRI research and highlights the limited and fragmented state of the empirical evidence.

What carries the argument

Thematic synthesis applied to 22 empirical studies selected for relevance to autonomy and agency in HRI.

If this is right

  • Robot designs that increase adaptiveness can support user autonomy in industrial and care environments.
  • Communication style choices affect users' reported sense of agency.
  • Levels of anthropomorphism and robot presence alter agency perceptions.
  • Individual user differences moderate how these robot features influence autonomy.
  • Standardised definitions and operational measures would enable more reliable comparisons across studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Design guidelines for companion robots could systematically incorporate the five clusters to improve long-term user motivation.
  • The review's emphasis on gaps suggests that qualitative studies in new cultural or domestic contexts might surface additional influences not yet captured.
  • If the clusters hold, regulatory or ethical frameworks for deploying robots in healthcare and education could reference these factors when assessing user impact.

Load-bearing premise

The 22 selected studies form a representative sample and the thematic synthesis identifies the main influences without selection or interpretation bias.

What would settle it

A new study in any reviewed setting that measures autonomy or agency and finds no consistent association with any of the five clusters, or that identifies a different dominant factor, would challenge the synthesis.

read the original abstract

Human autonomy and sense of agency are increasingly recognised as critical for user well-being, motivation, and the ethical deployment of robots in human-robot interaction (HRI). Given the rapid development of artificial intelligence, robot capabilities and their potential to function as colleagues and companions are growing. This systematic literature review synthesises 22 empirical studies selected from an initial pool of 728 articles published between 2011 and 2024. Articles were retrieved from major scientific databases and identified based on empirical focus and conceptual relevance, namely, how to preserve and promote human autonomy and sense of agency in HRI. Derived through thematic synthesis, five clusters of potentially influential factors are revealed: robot adaptiveness, communication style, anthropomorphism, presence of a robot and individual differences. Measured through psychometric scales or the intentional binding paradigm, perceptions of autonomy and agency varied across industrial, educational, healthcare, care, and hospitality settings. The review underscores the theoretical differences between both concepts, but their yet entangled use in HRI. Despite increasing interest, the current body of empirical evidence remains limited and fragmented, underscoring the necessity for standardised definitions, more robust operationalisations, and further exploratory and qualitative research. By identifying existing gaps and highlighting emerging trends, this review contributes to the development of human-centered, autonomy-supportive robot design strategies that uphold ethical and psychological principles, ultimately supporting well-being in human-robot interaction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a systematic literature review of human autonomy and sense of agency in HRI. It retrieves 728 articles (2011–2024) from major databases, selects 22 empirical studies on the basis of empirical focus and conceptual relevance, and applies thematic synthesis to derive five clusters of influential factors: robot adaptiveness, communication style, anthropomorphism, presence of a robot, and individual differences. Perceptions are reported as measured by psychometric scales or the intentional binding paradigm across industrial, educational, healthcare, care, and hospitality settings. The review notes theoretical distinctions between the two constructs yet their entangled use in the literature and calls for standardised definitions, more robust operationalisations, and additional exploratory research.

Significance. If the selection and synthesis procedures are shown to be rigorous, the review would usefully map an emerging, fragmented area of HRI research, explicitly credit the conceptual distinction between autonomy and agency, and surface concrete design implications for autonomy-supportive robots. The explicit identification of research gaps and the call for standardised measures are constructive contributions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods: The paper states that 22 studies were selected from 728 on the basis of 'empirical focus and conceptual relevance' and that themes were derived via 'thematic synthesis,' yet supplies no PRISMA flow diagram, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, number of coders, inter-rater reliability statistic, or quality appraisal of the included studies. Because the headline claim that the five clusters are 'potentially influential factors' rests entirely on the representativeness of this reduced sample and the systematic character of the theme extraction, the absence of these details is load-bearing.
  2. [Results] Results / Thematic synthesis subsection: No description is given of how the five clusters were generated (e.g., inductive coding process, resolution of disagreements, handling of heterogeneity across the five application domains). Without this information it is impossible to evaluate whether the clusters reflect stable patterns across the HRI literature or interpretive framing by the authors.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract is lengthy and could be tightened by moving the list of settings and measurement methods into the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these constructive comments on methodological transparency. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to provide the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and Methods: The paper states that 22 studies were selected from 728 on the basis of 'empirical focus and conceptual relevance' and that themes were derived via 'thematic synthesis,' yet supplies no PRISMA flow diagram, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, number of coders, inter-rater reliability statistic, or quality appraisal of the included studies. Because the headline claim that the five clusters are 'potentially influential factors' rests entirely on the representativeness of this reduced sample and the systematic character of the theme extraction, the absence of these details is load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that the current description is insufficient to allow full evaluation of the review's rigor. The original manuscript summarized the process at a high level only. In revision we will add a PRISMA flow diagram, state the precise inclusion/exclusion criteria used, report that title/abstract screening and full-text assessment were performed independently by two authors with consensus discussion for disagreements, include an inter-rater reliability statistic (Cohen's kappa) for the screening stage, and apply and report a quality appraisal of the 22 studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. These additions will be placed in a dedicated Methods subsection and referenced in the Abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results / Thematic synthesis subsection: No description is given of how the five clusters were generated (e.g., inductive coding process, resolution of disagreements, handling of heterogeneity across the five application domains). Without this information it is impossible to evaluate whether the clusters reflect stable patterns across the HRI literature or interpretive framing by the authors.

    Authors: We accept that the Thematic synthesis subsection requires expansion. The five clusters were produced through inductive coding: each study was read and open-coded for factors affecting autonomy or agency; codes were then grouped iteratively into higher-order themes; the resulting clusters were cross-checked against the full set of studies and refined. In the revised manuscript we will describe this process step-by-step, note that the lead author performed initial coding with review and discussion by the second author to resolve disagreements, and explain how domain heterogeneity was addressed by extracting both cross-cutting and domain-specific patterns while retaining the five overarching clusters. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: descriptive synthesis of external studies only

full rationale

This is a systematic literature review that selects 22 papers from an initial pool of 728 and applies thematic synthesis to surface five clusters of factors. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or models are present. The clusters are interpretive outputs from external published studies rather than self-defined constructs, renamed results, or load-bearing self-citations. The derivation chain consists solely of standard review methodology applied to independent prior work and contains no reduction to the paper's own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review depends on the validity of standard systematic review methods and the quality of the 22 underlying studies; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced by the authors.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Thematic synthesis is an appropriate and unbiased method for identifying patterns across heterogeneous empirical HRI studies.
    Invoked to derive the five factor clusters from the selected papers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5787 in / 1091 out tokens · 52774 ms · 2026-05-25T07:52:50.796345+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems51(4), 335–345 (2021) https://doi

    Weiss, A., Wortmeier, A.-K., Kubicek, B.: Cobots in industry 4.0: A roadmap for future practice studies on human–robot collabora- tion. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems51(4), 335–345 (2021) https://doi. org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3092684

    work page doi:10.1109/thms.2021.3092684 2021

  2. [2]

    Autonomous Robots9, 211–226 (2000) https: //doi.org/10.1023/A:1008974515925

    Prassler, E., Ritter, A., Schaeffer, C., Fior- ini, P.: A short history of cleaning robots. Autonomous Robots9, 211–226 (2000) https: //doi.org/10.1023/A:1008974515925

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1008974515925 2000

  3. [3]

    Archives of gerontology and geriatrics74, 15–25 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.archger.2017.08.014

    Vandemeulebroucke, T., De Casterl´ e, B.D., Gastmans, C.: The use of care robots in aged care: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics74, 15–25 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.archger.2017.08.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.archger.2017.08.014 2018

  4. [4]

    International Journal of Social Robotics16, 1445–1462 (2024) https://doi

    Kopp, T.: Facets of trust and distrust in col- laborative robots at the workplace: Towards a multidimensional and relational concep- tualisation. International Journal of Social Robotics16, 1445–1462 (2024) https://doi. org/10.1007/s12369-023-01082-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01082-1 2024

  5. [5]

    Journal of Manufacturing Systems62, 28–43 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.11.007

    Sim˜ oes, A.C., Pinto, A., Santos, J., Pinheiro, S., Romero, D.: Designing human-robot col- laboration (hrc) workspaces in industrial set- tings: A systematic literature review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems62, 28–43 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.11.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.11.007 2022

  6. [6]

    Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufac- turing68, 102072 (2021) https://doi.org/10

    Prati, E., Peruzzini, M., Pellicciari, M., Raf- faeli, R.: How to include user experience in the design of human-robot interaction. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufac- turing68, 102072 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.rcim.2020.102072

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing, COMA’19, vol

    Lotz, V., Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: You’re my mate – acceptance factors for human-robot collaboration in industry. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing, COMA’19, vol. 30, pp. 405–

    work page

  8. [8]

    https:// hdl.handle.net/10019.1/105429

    Department of Industrial Engineering, Stellenbosch, South Africa (2019). https:// hdl.handle.net/10019.1/105429

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    sorry, it was my fault

    Zhang, X., Lee, S.K., Kim, W., Hahn, S.: “sorry, it was my fault”: Repairing trust in human-robot interactions. Interna- tional Journal of Human-Computer Studies 175, 103031 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijhcs.2023.103031

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 23(2), 56–66 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1109/ MRA.2016.2546700

    Lemaignan, S., Jacq, A., Hood, D., Gar- cia, F., Paiva, A., Dillenbourg, P.: Learning by teaching a robot: The case of handwrit- ing. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 23(2), 56–66 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1109/ MRA.2016.2546700

    work page arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Fron- tiers in ICT4, 16 (2017) https://doi.org/10

    Jung, M.M., Leij, L., Kelders, S.M.: An explo- ration of the benefits of an animallike robot companion with more advanced touch inter- action capabilities for dementia care. Fron- tiers in ICT4, 16 (2017) https://doi.org/10. 3389/fict.2017.00016

    work page arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    IEEE (2017)

    The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics 14 of Autonomous and Intelligent Sys- tems: Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Sys- tems, Version 2. IEEE (2017). https: //standards.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/ import/documents/other/ead v2.pdf

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (1998)

    Schneewind, J.B.: The Invention of Auton- omy: A History of Modern Moral Philoso- phy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (1998)

    work page 1998

  14. [14]

    Social philosophy and policy 20(2), 70–98 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1017/ S026505250320203X

    Guyer, P.: Kant on the theory and practice of autonomy. Social philosophy and policy 20(2), 70–98 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1017/ S026505250320203X

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    American psychologist55(1), 68–78 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

    Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic moti- vation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist55(1), 68–78 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

    work page doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68 2000

  16. [16]

    In: Elliot, A.J

    Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Chapter four - brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. In: Elliot, A.J. (ed.) Advances in Motivation Science vol. 6, pp. 111–156. Elsevier, Ams- terdam (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs. adms.2019.01.001

    work page doi:10.1016/bs 2019

  17. [17]

    Motivation and emotion44(1), 1–31 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1

    Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R.M., Soe- nens, B.: Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and emotion44(1), 1–31 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1 2020

  18. [18]

    in the era of autonomous technology

    Soma, R., Bratteteig, T., Saplacan, D., Schimmer, R., Campano, E., Verne, G.B.: Strengthening human autonomy. in the era of autonomous technology. Scandinavian Jour- nal of Information Systems34(2), 5 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Frontiers in Psychology 9, 797 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg

    Peters, D., Calvo, R.A., Ryan, R.M.: Design- ing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Frontiers in Psychology 9, 797 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2018.00797

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg 2018

  20. [20]

    Psychological reports121(1), 112–134 (2018)

    Heyns, M., Rothmann, S.: Volitional trust, autonomy satisfaction, and engagement at work. Psychological reports121(1), 112–134 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Human factors59(1), 5–27 (2017)

    Endsley, M.R.: From here to autonomy: lessons learned from human–automation research. Human factors59(1), 5–27 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 16(5), 857–878 (2024) https://doi.org/10

    Janssen, S., Schadenberg, B.R.: A psycholog- ical need-fulfillment perspective for design- ing social robots that support well-being. International Journal of Social Robotics 16(5), 857–878 (2024) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12369-024-01102-8

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Research Policy53(5), 104987 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.104987

    Nikolova, M., Cnossen, F., Nikolaev, B.: Robots, meaning, and self-determination. Research Policy53(5), 104987 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.104987

    work page doi:10.1016/j.respol.2024.104987 2024

  24. [24]

    human autonomy: social robots, artificial intelligence (ai), and the nature of autonomy

    Formosa, P.: Robot autonomy vs. human autonomy: social robots, artificial intelligence (ai), and the nature of autonomy. Minds and Machines31(4), 595–616 (2021) https://doi. org/10.1007/s11023-021-09579-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11023-021-09579-2 2021

  25. [25]

    Moore, J.W.: What is the sense of agency and why does it matter? Frontiers in psychol- ogy7, 1272 (2016) https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2016.01272

    work page arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    CHI ’23, pp

    Bennett, D., Metatla, O., Roudaut, A., Mek- ler, E.D.: How does hci understand human agency and autonomy? In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’23, pp. 1–18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3544548.3580651

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Cummins, F.: Agency is distinct from autonomy. AVANT. Pismo Awangardy Filozoficzno-Naukowej (2), 98–112 (2014)

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    American psychologist54(7), 480 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.480

    Wegner, D.M., Wheatley, T.: Apparent men- tal causation: Sources of the experience of will. American psychologist54(7), 480 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.480

    work page doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.480 1999

  29. [30]

    BMJ372(71), 1–9 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

    Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Bren- nan, S.E.,et al.: The PRISMA 2020 state- ment: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ372(71), 1–9 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

    work page doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 2020

  30. [31]

    GitHub (2025)

    West, P.: bibtex-tidy. GitHub (2025). https: //flamingtempura.github.io/bibtex-tidy

    work page 2025

  31. [32]

    In: International Con- ference on Persuasive Technology, pp

    Donnermann, M., Schaper, P., Lugrin, B.: Towards adaptive robotic tutors in univer- sities: A field study. In: International Con- ference on Persuasive Technology, pp. 33–46. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany (2021). https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79460-6 3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79460-6 2021

  32. [33]

    British Journal of Social Psychology47(2), 267–283 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X238797

    Sheldon, K.M., Filak, V.: Manipu- lating autonomy, competence, and relatedness support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. British Journal of Social Psychology47(2), 267–283 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X238797

    work page doi:10.1348/014466607x238797 2008

  33. [34]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies106, 63–76 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs

    Henkemans, O.A.B., Bierman, B.P., Janssen, J., Looije, R., Neerincx, M.A., Dooren, M.M., Vries, J.L., Burg, G.J., Huisman, S.D.: Design and evaluation of a personal robot play- ing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies106, 63–76 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs. 2017.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs 2017

  34. [35]

    Journal of personal- ity and social psychology79(3), 367 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.3367

    La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., Deci, E.L.: Within-person variation in security of attachment: a self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need ful- fillment, and well-being. Journal of personal- ity and social psychology79(3), 367 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.3367

    work page doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.3367 2000

  35. [36]

    Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 1–24 (2023) https://doi.org/10

    Lee, S.: The role of intrinsic motivations on customers’ service robot use experience. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 1–24 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1080/1528008X.2023.2289381

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [37]

    Computers in Human Behavior68, 83–95 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb

    Nikou, S.A., Economides, A.A.: Mobile-based assessment: Integrating acceptance and moti- vational factors into a combined model of self- determination theory and technology accep- tance. Computers in Human Behavior68, 83–95 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb. 2016.11.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb 2017

  37. [38]

    Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research42(7), 1086–1105 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1096348016675926

    Lee, S.: The effect of social networking sites’ activities on customers’ well-being. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research42(7), 1086–1105 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1096348016675926

    work page 2018

  38. [39]

    IEEE Transactions on Learning Technolo- gies16(2), 206–218 (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TLT.2023.3250465

    Lu, Y., Chen, C., Chen, P., Yu, S.: Design- ing social robot for adults using self- determination theory and ai technologies. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technolo- gies16(2), 206–218 (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TLT.2023.3250465

    work page doi:10.1109/tlt.2023.3250465 2023

  39. [40]

    International Journal of Social Robotics15(11), 1769–1790 (2023) https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01033-w

    Moradbakhti, L., Mara, M., Castellano, G., Winkle, K.: (counter-) stereotypical gender- ing of robots in care: impact on needs satis- faction and gender role concepts in men and women users. International Journal of Social Robotics15(11), 1769–1790 (2023) https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01033-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01033-w 2023

  40. [41]

    Psychological Test Adaptation and Development (2024) https://doi.org/10

    Moradbakhti, L., Leichtmann, B., Mara, M.: Development and validation of a basic psychological needs scale for tech- nology use. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development (2024) https://doi.org/10. 1027/2698-1866/a000062

    work page 2024

  41. [42]

    Journal of Robotics and Mechatron- ics35(3), 723–733 (2023) https://doi.org/10

    Ohshima, N., Iwasaki, K., Mayumi, R., Hasegawa, K., Okada, M.: Pocketable-bones: Self-augment mobile robot mediating our sociality. Journal of Robotics and Mechatron- ics35(3), 723–733 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 20965/jrm.2023.p0723

    work page 2023

  42. [43]

    In: 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on 16 Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp

    Sinai, D., Rosenberg-Kima, R.B.: Perceptions of social robots as motivating learning com- panions for online learning. In: 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on 16 Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 1045–

    work page 2022

  43. [44]

    https: //doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889592

    IEEE, Sapporo, Japan (2022). https: //doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889592

    work page doi:10.1109/hri53351.2022.9889592 2022

  44. [45]

    Research quarterly for exercise and sport 60(1), 48–58 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02701367.1989.10607413

    McAuley, E., Duncan, T., Tammen, V.V.: Psychometric properties of the intrinsic moti- vation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research quarterly for exercise and sport 60(1), 48–58 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02701367.1989.10607413

    work page arXiv 1989

  45. [46]

    Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–12 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2295032

    Yang, X., Gao, Y.: Co-creation with ser- vice robots and employee wellbeing: a self-determination perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–12 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2295032

    work page doi:10.1080/0144929x.2023.2295032 2023

  46. [47]

    Journal of occupational and organizational psychol- ogy83(4), 981–1002 (2010) https://doi.org/ 10.1348/096317909X481382

    Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., Lens, W.: Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Con- struction and initial validation of the work- related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of occupational and organizational psychol- ogy83(4), 981–1002 (2010) https://doi.org/ 10.1348/096317909X481382

    work page doi:10.1348/096317909x481382 2010

  47. [48]

    Organizational behavior and human perfor- mance16(2), 250–279 (1976) https://doi

    Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R.: Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human perfor- mance16(2), 250–279 (1976) https://doi. org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 1976

  48. [49]

    Small Business Eco- nomics57(4), 1819–1836 (2021) https://doi

    Nikolova, M., Nikolaev, B., Popova, O.: The perceived well-being and health costs of exit- ing self-employment. Small Business Eco- nomics57(4), 1819–1836 (2021) https://doi. org/10.1007/s11187-020-00374-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11187-020-00374-4 2021

  49. [50]

    Frontiers in psychiatry 14, 1052889 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyt.2023.1052889

    Koh, W.Q., Vandemeulebroucke, T., Gast- mans, C., Miranda, R., Block, L.: The ethics of pet robots in dementia care settings: Care professionals’ and organisational lead- ers’ ethical intuitions. Frontiers in psychiatry 14, 1052889 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyt.2023.1052889

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [51]

    Edicoes Loyola, Oxford, United Kingdom (1994)

    Beauchamp, T.L., Childress, J.F.: Princi- ples of Biomedical Ethics. Edicoes Loyola, Oxford, United Kingdom (1994)

    work page 1994

  51. [52]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW1), 1–25 (2021) https://doi.org/10

    Coghlan, S., Waycott, J., Lazar, A., Bar- bosa Neves, B.: Dignity, autonomy, and style of company: dimensions older adults con- sider for robot companions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW1), 1–25 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1145/3449178

    work page 2021

  52. [53]

    Journal of aging studies26(2), 214–225 (2012) https://doi

    Perkins, M.M., Ball, M.M., Whittington, F.J., Hollingsworth, C.: Relational autonomy in assisted living: A focus on diverse care settings for older adults. Journal of aging studies26(2), 214–225 (2012) https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jaging.2012.01.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2012.01.001 2012

  53. [54]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI9, 836462 (2022) https://doi.org/10

    Serholt, S., Ekstr¨ om, S., K¨ uster, D., Ljung- blad, S., Pareto, L.: Comparing a robot tutee to a human tutee in a learning-by-teaching scenario with children. Frontiers in Robotics and AI9, 836462 (2022) https://doi.org/10. 3389/frobt.2022.836462

    work page arXiv 2022

  54. [56]

    Trends in cognitive sciences4(1), 14–21 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1364-6613(99)01417-5

    Gallagher, S.: Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive sci- ence. Trends in cognitive sciences4(1), 14–21 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1364-6613(99)01417-5

    work page 2000

  55. [57]

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience12, 137 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum

    Barlas, Z., Kopp, S.: Action choice and out- come congruency independently affect inten- tional binding and feeling of control judg- ments. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience12, 137 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum. 2018.00137

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum 2018

  56. [58]

    In: Social Robotics: 11th International Con- ference, ICSR 2019, pp

    Roselli, C., Ciardo, F., Wykowska, A.: Robots improve judgments on self-generated actions: an intentional binding study. In: Social Robotics: 11th International Con- ference, ICSR 2019, pp. 88–97. Springer, Madrid, Spain (2019). https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-35888-4 9

    work page 2019

  57. [59]

    Quar- terly journal of experimental psychology 76(3), 606–620 (2023) https://doi.org/10

    Saha¨ ı, A., Caspar, E., De Beir, A., Grynsz- pan, O., Pacherie, E., Berberian, B.: Mod- ulations of one’s sense of agency during 17 human–machine interactions: a behavioural study using a full humanoid robot. Quar- terly journal of experimental psychology 76(3), 606–620 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1177/17470218221095841

    work page 2023

  58. [60]

    In: Social Robotics: 10th International Conference, ICSR 2018, pp

    Ciardo, F., De Tommaso, D., Beyer, F., Wykowska, A.: Reduced sense of agency in human-robot interaction. In: Social Robotics: 10th International Conference, ICSR 2018, pp. 441–450. Springer, Qingdao, China (2018). https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05204-1 43

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05204-1 2018

  59. [61]

    Neuropsychologia55, 137–142 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia

    Frith, C.D.: Action, agency and responsi- bility. Neuropsychologia55, 137–142 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia. 2013.09.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia 2014

  60. [62]

    Scientific Reports 13(1), 10113 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-023-36864-0

    Lombardi, M., Roselli, C., Kompatsiari, K., Rospo, F., Natale, L., Wykowska, A.: The impact of facial expression and communica- tive gaze of a humanoid robot on indi- vidual sense of agency. Scientific Reports 13(1), 10113 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-023-36864-0

    work page 2023

  61. [63]

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience18(4), 196–207 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn

    Haggard, P.: Sense of agency in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience18(4), 196–207 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn. 2017.14

    work page doi:10.1038/nrn 2017

  62. [64]

    Frontiers in psychology7, 1315 (2016) https: //doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01315

    Khalighinejad, N., Bahrami, B., Caspar, E.A., Haggard, P.: Social transmission of experience of agency: An experimental study. Frontiers in psychology7, 1315 (2016) https: //doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01315

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01315 2016

  63. [65]

    Masset, R

    Moretto, G., Walsh, E., Haggard, P.: Expe- rience of agency and sense of responsi- bility. Consciousness and cognition20(4), 1847–1854 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. concog.2011.08.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2011

  64. [66]

    IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews)42(4), 561– 570 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC

    Huete, A.J., Victores, J.G., Martinez, S., Gim´ enez, A., Balaguer, C.: Personal auton- omy rehabilitation in home environments by a portable assistive robot. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews)42(4), 561– 570 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC. 2011.2159201

    work page doi:10.1109/tsmcc 2011

  65. [67]

    In: 9th International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA), pp

    Kaur, G., Banerjee, S., Banerjee, N.K.: Studying worker perceptions on safety, auton- omy, and job security in human-robot col- laboration. In: 9th International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA), pp. 187–191. IEEE, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (2023). https://doi. org/10.1109/ICARA56516.2023.10125842

    work page doi:10.1109/icara56516.2023.10125842 2023

  66. [68]

    In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communica- tion (RO-MAN), pp

    Swift-Spong, K., Wen, C.K.F., Spruijt- Metz, D., Matari´ c, M.J.: Comparing back- stories of a socially assistive robot exer- cise buddy for adolescent youth. In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communica- tion (RO-MAN), pp. 1013–1018. IEEE, New York, USA (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ROMAN.2016.7745233

    work page arXiv 2016

  67. [69]

    Journal of educational psychology81(2), 143 (1989) https://doi

    Grolnick, W.S., Ryan, R.M.: Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of educational psychology81(2), 143 (1989) https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143

    work page doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143 1989

  68. [70]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Human-Robot Interac- tion, pp

    Yu, X., Hoggenm¨ uller, M., Tomitsch, M.: Your way or my way: Improving human- robot co-navigation through robot intent and pedestrian prediction visualisations. In: Pro- ceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Human-Robot Interac- tion, pp. 211–221. Association for Computing Machinery, Stockholm, Sweden (2023). https: //doi.org/10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3568162.3576992 2023

  69. [71]

    Fron- tiers in psychology8, 1552 (2017) https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01552

    Tapal, A., Oren, E., Dar, R., Eitam, B.: The sense of agency scale: A measure of con- sciously perceived control over one’s mind, body, and the immediate environment. Fron- tiers in psychology8, 1552 (2017) https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01552

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01552 2017

  70. [72]

    Consciousness and Cognition21(1), 546– 561 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog

    Moore, J.W., Obhi, S.S.: Intentional bind- ing and the sense of agency: A review. Consciousness and Cognition21(1), 546– 561 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog. 2011.12.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.concog 2012

  71. [73]

    18 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L 202401689

    European Parliament and the Coun- cil of the European Union: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Par- liament and of the Council (2024). 18 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L 202401689

    work page 2024

  72. [74]

    International Journal of Social Robotics12(6), 1179–1201 (2020) https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4

    Naneva, S., Sarda Gou, M., Webb, T.L., Prescott, T.J.: A systematic review of atti- tudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics12(6), 1179–1201 (2020) https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00659-4 2020

  73. [75]

    Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels, Belgium (2024)

    European Commission and Directorate- General for Research and Innovation: ERA Industrial Technologies Roadmap on Human- centric Research and Innovation for the Manufacturing Sector. Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels, Belgium (2024). https://doi.org/10.2777/0266

    work page doi:10.2777/0266 2024

  74. [76]

    https://ec.europa.eu/ info/funding-tenders/opportunities/ docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2025/ wp-5-culture-creativity-and-inclusive-society horizon-2025 en.pdf Accessed 2025-05-20

    European Commission: Horizon Europe - Work Programme 2025 Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society (2025). https://ec.europa.eu/ info/funding-tenders/opportunities/ docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2025/ wp-5-culture-creativity-and-inclusive-society horizon-2025 en.pdf Accessed 2025-05-20

    work page 2025

  75. [77]

    https://ec.europa

    European Commission: Horizon Europe - Work Programme 2025 Digital, Indus- try and Space (2025). https://ec.europa. eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/ docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/ 2025/wp-7-digital-industry-and-space horizon-2025 en.pdf Accessed 2025-05-20

    work page 2025

  76. [78]

    In: Robotics: Sci- ence and Systems, pp

    Yoshikawa, Y., Shinozawa, K., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N., Miyamoto, T.: Responsive robot gaze to interaction partner. In: Robotics: Sci- ence and Systems, pp. 37–43. MIT Press, Philadelphia, USA (2006). https://doi.org/ 10.15607/RSS.2006.II.037

    work page doi:10.15607/rss.2006.ii.037 2006

  77. [79]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, pp

    C ¸ akır, M., Huckauf, A.: Reviewing the social function of eye gaze in social interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, pp. 1–3. Association for Computing Machinery, Tub- ingen, Germany (2023). https://doi.org/10. 1145/3588015.3589513

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [80]

    IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Magazine19(2), 98–100 (2012) https: //doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

    Mori, M., MacDorman, K.F., Kageki, N.: The uncanny valley. IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Magazine19(2), 98–100 (2012) https: //doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

    work page doi:10.1109/mra.2012.2192811 2012

  79. [81]

    In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp

    Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., Norton, M.I.: Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2563–2568. IEEE, St. Louis, USA (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2009.5354116

    work page doi:10.1109/iros.2009.5354116 2009

  80. [82]

    Sci- ence Robotics6(58), 5425 (2021) https://doi

    Roesler, E., Manzey, D., Onnasch, L.: A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of anthro- pomorphism in human-robot interaction. Sci- ence Robotics6(58), 5425 (2021) https://doi. org/10.1126/scirobotics.abj5425

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.abj5425 2021

Showing first 80 references.