Cover not available

Article published In: Envisioning Social Robotics: Current challenges and new interdisciplinary methodologies
Edited by Glenda Hannibal and Astrid Weiss
[Interaction Studies 21:1] 2020
► pp. 111–144

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Integrative social robotics, value-driven design, and transdisciplinarity

 | Aarhus University
 | Aarhus University
 | Aarhus University
Published online: 24 January 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18061.sei
Abstract
“Integrative Social Robotics” (ISR) is a new approach or general method for generating social robotics applications in a responsible and “culturally sustainable” fashion. Currently social robotics is caught in a basic difficulty we call the “triple gridlock of description, evaluation, and regulation”. We briefly recapitulate this problem and then present the core ideas of ISR in the form of five principles that should guide the development of applications in social robotics. Characteristic of ISR is to intertwine a mixed method approach (i.e., conducting experimental, quantitative, qualitative, and phenomenological research for the same envisaged application) with conceptual and axiological analysis as required in professional studies in applied ethics; moreover, ISR is value-driven and abides by the “Non-Replacement Principle”: Social robots may only do what humans should but cannot do. We briefly compare ISR to other value-sensitive or value-directed design models, with a view to the task of overcoming the triple gridlock. Finally, working from an advanced classification of pluridiscplinary research, we argue that ISR establishes a research format that can turn social robotics into a new transdiscipline.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The motivation for ISR: A triple gridlock
    • 2.1The description problem in social robotics
    • 2.2The evaluation and regulation problem; closing the negative feedback loop
  • 3.Five principles of ISR
  • 4.Value-driven versus value-sensitive design
  • 5.Social robotics – interdiscipline or transdiscipline?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (83)
References
Arkin, R. C., & Arkin, R. C. (1998). Behavior-based robotics. MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bethel, C. L., & Murphy, R. R. (2010). Review of Human Studies Methods in HRI and Recommendations. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 347–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickhard, M. H. (2009). The interactivist model. Synthese, 166(3), 547–591. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Robot Sociality: Genuine or Simulation? In Sociality and Normativity for Robots (pp. 41–66). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borenstein, J., & Arkin, R. C. (2017). Nudging for good: robots and the ethical appropriateness of nurturing empathy and charitable behavior. AI & SOCIETY, 32(4), 499–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breazeal, C. (2002). Designing Sociable Robots. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Toward Sociable Robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, (421), 167–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, R. (2015). The metaphysics of emergence. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheon, E., & Su, N. M. (2018). Futuristic Autobiographies: Weaving Participant Narratives to Elicit Values around Robots. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 388–397). ACM. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coeckelbergh, M. (2012). Growing moral relations: Critique of moral status ascription. Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coeckelbergh, M., J. Loh, M. Funk, J. Seibt, M. Nørskov. (2018). Envisioning Robots in Society – Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collingridge, D. (1980). The Social Control of Technology. London: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Damholdt, M., Nørskov, M., Yamazaki, R., Hakli, R., Hansen, C. V., LL, C., & NN, J. (2015). Attitudinal change in elderly citizens toward social robots: the role of personality traits and beliefs about robot functionality. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 1701. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Damholdt, M., Vestergaard, C., Seibt, J. (2019). Testing for anthropomorphizations – a case for mixed methods. In Jost, C., Pedevic, B. & Grandgeorge, M. (Eds), Methods in Human-Robot Interaction Research (forthcoming). New York: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Darling, K., Nandy, P., & Breazeal, C. (2015). Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction (pp. 770–775). Presented at the Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium, IEEE Press.
Dautenhahn, K. (2013). Human-robot interaction. The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed. [URL]
Dautenhahn, K., & Billard, A. (1999). Studying robot social cognition within a developmental psychology framework. In Advanced Mobile Robots, 1999. (Eurobot’99) 1999 Third European Workshop on (pp. 187–194). IEEE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. (1989). The Intentional Stance. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffy, B. R., Rooney, C., O’Hare, G. M., & O’Donoghue, R. (1999). What is a Social Robot? Presented at the 10th Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Cognitive Science, University College Cork, Ireland, 1–3 September, 1999.
Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 177–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dziergwa, M., Kaczmarek, M., Kaczmarek, P., Kędzierski, J., & Wadas-Szydłowska, K. (2018). Long-Term Cohabitation with a Social Robot: A Case Study of the Influence of Human Attachment Patterns. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(1), 163–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiebich, A. (2017). Social Cognition, Empathy and Agent-Specificities in Cooperation. Topoi, 1–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiebich, A., Nguyen, N., & Schwarzkopf, S. (2015). Cooperation with robots? A two-dimensional approach. In Collective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems (pp. 25–43). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A Survey of Socially Interactive Robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, (421), 143–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedman, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., & Borning, A. (1997). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang, & D. Galetta (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems (pp. 348–372). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallagher, S., & Varga, S. (2014). Social constraints on the direct perception of emotions and intentions. Topoi, 33(1), 185–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodrich, M. A., & Schultz, A. C. (2007). Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakli, R. & Seibt, J. (Eds). (2017). Sociality and normativity for robots – philosophical investigations. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hannibal, G., & Lindner, F. (2018). Transdisciplinary Reflections on Social Robotics in Academia and Beyond. In M. Coeckelbergh, J. Loh, M. Funk, J. Seibt, M. Nørskov (Eds.), Envisioning Social Robots—Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasse, C. (2015). Multistable roboethics. Technoscience and Postphenomenology: The Manhattan Papers. Books, Lexington, 169–188.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). The Vitruvian robot. AI & Society, 34(1), 91–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasse, C., Trentemøller, S., & Sorenson, J. (2019). Special Issue on Ethnography in Human-Robot Interaction Research. Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 10(1), 180–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasse, C., & D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.) (2019b), Designing robots, designing humans. New York: Routledge, 2019. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huttenrauch, H., & Eklundh, K. S. (2002). Fetch-and-carry with CERO: observations from a long-term user study with a service robot. 158–163. IEEE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jost, C., Podevic, B., & Grandgeorge, M. (2020). Methods in Human Robot Interaction. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahn Jr, P. H., Ruckert, J. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Reichert, A., Gary, H., & Shen, S. (2010). Psychological intimacy with robots?: using interaction patterns to uncover depth of relation. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 123–124. IEEE Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahn, P. H., Reichert, A. L., Gary, H. E., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Shen, S., … Gill, B. (2011). The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction – HRI ’11 (p. 159). Lausanne, Switzerland: ACM Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kudina, O., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2018). Ethics from within: Google Glass, the Collingridge dilemma, and the mediated value of privacy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 0162243918793711.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leite, I. (2015). Long-term interactions with empathic social robots. AI Matters, 1(3), 13–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Miremadi, M., Bughin, J., George, K., Willmott, K., & Dewhurst, M. (2017). Harnessing Automation for a Future that Works. Retrieved from [URL]
Misselhorn, C. (2015). Collective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems: Explanation, Implementation and Simulation (Vol. 1221). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nickelsen, N. C. M. (2018). Socio-Technical Imaginaries and Human-Robotics Proximity—The Case of Bestic. M. Coeckelbergh J. Loh, M. Funk, J. Seibt, M. Nørskov (Eds.). Envisioning Robots in Society – Power, Politics, and Public Space, 212–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., Han, J., Shin, N., Burke, J., & Kato, K. (2008). What people assume about humanoid and animal-type robots: cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea, and the United States. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 5(01), 25–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
op den Akker, R., & Bruijnes, M. (2012). Computational models of social and emotional turn-taking for embodied conversational agents: A review. COMMIT Deliverable.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parviainen, J., Van Aerschot, L., Särkikoski, T., Pekkarinen, S., Melkas, H., & Hennala, L. (2016). Motions with emotions. A double body perspective and human-robot interaction in elderly care. In: J. Seibt, M. Nørskov, S. Schack Andersen What Social Robots Can and Should Do – Proceedings of the Robophilosophy 2016 conference IOS, Amsterdam, 210–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payr, S. (2018). In Search of a Narrative for Human–Robot Relationships. Cybernetics and Systems, 1–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robertson, J. (2017). Robo Sapiens Japanicus: Robots, Gender, Family, and the Japanese Nation. Univ of California Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sabanovic, S. (2007). Making Friends: Building Social Robots through Interdisciplinary Collaboration. [URL]
Šabanović, S. (2010). Robots in society, society in robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 439–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Šabanović, S., & Chang, W.-L. (2016). Socializing robots: constructing robotic sociality in the design and use of the assistive robot PARO. AI & Society, 31(4), 537–551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sabelli, A. M., Kanda, T., & Hagita, N. (2011). A conversational robot in an elderly care center: An ethnographic study. 37–44. ACM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seibt, J., Hakli, R. & Nørskov, M. (Eds.) (2014a). Sociable robots and the future of social relations – Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2014, Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seibt, J. (2014b). Varieties of the ‘as if’: Five ways to simulate an action. In Seibt, J., Hakli, R. & Nørskov, M. (Eds.), Sociable robots and the future of social relations–Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2014 (Vol. 2731, pp. 97–105). IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seibt, J., Nørskov, M. & Schack Andersen, S. (2016a). What Social Robots Can and Should Do – Proceedings of Robophilosophy/TRANSOR 2016 Amsterdam: /IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seibt, J. (2016b). Integrative Social Robotics – A new method paradigm to solve the description problem and the regulation problem? In Seibt, J., Nørskov, M., & Schack Andersen, S., What social robots can and should do – Proceedings of Robophilosophy/TRANSOR 2016 (pp. 104–114). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016c). Integrative Social Robotics – Semper Ardens Project Carlsberg Foundation. Retrieved November 3, 2018, from [URL]
(2016d). How to naturalize intentionality and sensory consciousness within a process monism with gradient normativity. In O’Shea, J. (Ed.), Sellars and His Legacy (pp. 187–221). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Towards an Ontology of Simulated Social Interaction: Varieties of the “As If” for Robots and Humans. In Hakli, R. & Seibt, J. (Eds), Sociality and Normativity for Robots (pp. 11–39). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seibt, J., Damholdt, M., Vestergaard, C. (2018). Five principles of intergrative social robotics. In Coeckelbergh, M., Loh, J., Funk, M., Seibt, J. & Nørskov, M. (Eds), Envisioning Robots in Society – Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018 (pp. 28–42). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seibt, J. (2018). Classifying Forms and Modes of Co-Working in the Ontology of Asymmetric Social Interactions (OASIS). In Coeckelbergh, M., Loh, J., Funk, M., Seibt, J. & Nørskov, M. (Eds), Envisioning Robots in Society – Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018 (pp. 133–147). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). How to describe human ‘social’ interactions with robots – the ontology of simulated sociality (OASIS). In Seibt, J., Hakli, R. & Nørskov, M. (Eds), Robophilosophy – Philosophy of, for, and by social robotics (forthcoming). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sekiyama, K. (1999). Toward social robotics. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(3), 213–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharkey, N. (2008). The ethical frontiers of robotics. Science, 322(5909), 1800–1801. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharkey, A. (2014). Robots and human dignity: A consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(1), 63–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2012). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 27–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skewes, J., Amodio, D. M., & Seibt, J. (2019). Social robotics and the modulation of social perception and bias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 3741(1771), 20180037. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smedegaard, C. (2019). Reframing the role of novelty within social hri: from noise to information. In 14th annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sparrow, R. (2016). Robots in aged care: a dystopian future?. AI & society, 31(4), 445–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines, 16(2), 141–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sung, J., Christensen, H. I., & Grinter, R. E. (2009). Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction – HRI ’09 (p. 451). La Jolla, California, USA: ACM Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Hoven, J. (2013). Value sensitive design and responsible innovation. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, 75–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van de Poel, I. (2015). Design for Values. In Social Responsibility and Science Innovation Economy (P. Kawalec, R.P. Wierzchoslawski, pp. 115–165). Lublin: Learned Soceity of KUL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Wynsberghe, A. (2013). Designing robots for care: Care centered value-sensitive design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 407–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiss, A., Wurhofer, D., & Tscheligi, M. (2009). “I love this dog” – children’s emotional attachment to the robotic dog AIBO. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3), 243–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., & Tscheligi, M. (2011). The USUS evaluation framework for user-centered HRI. New Frontiers in Human–Robot Interaction, 21, 89–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiese, E., Metta, G., & Wykowska, A. (2017). Robots As Intentional Agents: Using Neuroscientific Methods to Make Robots Appear More Social. Frontiers in Psychology, 81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wieland, W. (1999). Platon und die Formen des Wissens. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wykowska, A., Chaminade, T., & Cheng, G. (2016). Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 3711(1693), 20150375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zawieska, K., & Stańczyk, A. (2015). Anthropomorphic language in robotics. Presented at the Workshop Bridging the Gap between HRI and Robot Ethics Research at the 7th International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR2015).
Złotowski, J. A., Sumioka, H., Nishio, S., Glas, D. F., Bartneck, C., & Ishiguro, H. (2018). Persistence of the Uncanny Valley. Geminoid Studies: Science and Technologies for Humanlike Teleoperated Androids, 163–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Złotowski, J., Sumioka, H., Nishio, S., Glas, D. F., Bartneck, C., & Ishiguro, H. (2016). Appearance of a robot affects the impact of its behaviour on perceived trustworthiness and empathy. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 71, 55–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (30)

Cited by 30 other publications

Hakli, Raul, Sven Nyholm & Marco Nørskov
2026. Introduction: Culturally Sustainable Social Robotics?. In Social Robots and Cultural Sustainability [Social and Cultural Studies of Robots and AI, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Guo, Jianan
2025. 从“控制”到“共生”：行动者网络理论视角下人机关系的伦理问题与良性发展路径. 香港文理研究院学报 1:2 ► pp. 56 ff. DOI logo
Herbener, Arthur Bran & Malene Flensborg Damholdt
2025. A theoretical framework of the processes of change in mental health interventions delivered by artificial therapists. Journal of Psychology and AI 1:1 DOI logo
Piirisild, Anu, Leonid Zinatullin, Alina Roštšinskaja, Rasmus Eist, Renno Raudmäe, Anneli Kolk, Alvo Aabloo & Karl Kruusamäe
2025. Structuring Social Robot Requirements: Integrating User Perception and Emotional Goals in Technical Development. In European Robotics Forum 2025 [Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics, 36], ► pp. 128 ff. DOI logo
Cruces, Alejandro, Antonio Jerez, Juan Pedro Bandera & Antonio Bandera
2024. Socially Assistive Robots in Smart Environments to Attend Elderly People—A Survey. Applied Sciences 14:12 ► pp. 5287 ff. DOI logo
Fernández Castro, Víctor, Amandine Mayima, Kathleen Belhassein & Aurélie Clodic
2024. The Role of Commitments in Socially Appropriate Robotics. In Technik sozialisieren? / Technology Socialisation? [Techno:Phil – Aktuelle Herausforderungen der Technikphilosophie, 10], ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Hägglund, Susanne, Malin Andtfolk, Sara Rosenberg, Mattias Wingren, Sören Andersson & Linda Nyholm
2024. Do you wanna dance? Tales of trust and driving trust factors in robot medication counseling in the pharmacy context. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 11 DOI logo
Iglesias, Ana, Raquel Viciana, José Manuel Pérez-Lorenzo, Karine Lan Hing Ting, Alberto Tudela, Rebeca Marfil, Malak Qbilat, Antonio Hurtado, Antonio Jerez & Juan Pedro Bandera
2024. The Town Crier: A Use-Case Design and Implementation for a Socially Assistive Robot in Retirement Homes. Robotics 13:4 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Jerez, Antonio, Ana Iglesias, José Manuel Pérez-Lorenzo, Alberto Tudela, Alejandro Cruces & Juan Pedro Bandera
2024. An User-Centered Evaluation of Two Socially Assistive Robots Integrated in a Retirement Home. International Journal of Social Robotics 16:9-10 ► pp. 2043 ff. DOI logo
Marfil, Rebeca, Pablo Bustos & Antonio Bandera
2024. Causal-Based Approaches to Explain and Learn from Self-Extension—A Review. Electronics 13:7 ► pp. 1169 ff. DOI logo
Capasso, Marianna
2023. Responsible Social Robotics and the Dilemma of Control. International Journal of Social Robotics 15:12 ► pp. 1981 ff. DOI logo
de Pagter, Jesse
2023. Ethics and Robot Democratization: Reflecting on Integrative Ethics Practices. International Journal of Social Robotics 15:12 ► pp. 2005 ff. DOI logo
de Pagter, Jesse
2024. From EU Robotics and AI Governance to HRI Research: Implementing the Ethics Narrative. International Journal of Social Robotics 16:6 ► pp. 1281 ff. DOI logo
Guillén-Ruiz, Silvia, Juan Pedro Bandera, Alejandro Hidalgo-Paniagua & Antonio Bandera
2023. Evolution of Socially-Aware Robot Navigation. Electronics 12:7 ► pp. 1570 ff. DOI logo
Kollakidou, Avgi, Kevin Lefeuvre, Christian Sønderskov Zarp-Falden, Elodie Malbois, Leon Bodenhagen, Norbert Krüger & Eva Hornecker
2023. Bibo the Moving Cup for People Affected by Dementia: Design, Ethical Considerations, and First Observations in Use. SN Computer Science 4:5 DOI logo
Rojas, Alejandra & Sladjana Nørskov
2023. Interactions Afforded by Mobile Telepresence Robots in Health Care Settings. In HCI International 2023 Posters [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1833], ► pp. 138 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz, Silvia Guillén, Juan P. Bandera Rubio, Alejandro Hidalgo-Paniagua & Antonio Bandera
2023. 2023 3rd International Conference on Electrical, Computer, Communications and Mechatronics Engineering (ICECCME), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Skerlj, Jon, Maximilian Braun, Sophia Witz, Svenja Breuer, Marieke Bak, Sebastian Scholz, Abdeldjallil Naceri, Ruth Müller, Sami Haddadin & Iris Eisenberger
2023. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Belhassein, Kathleen, Víctor Fernández-Castro, Amandine Mayima, Aurélie Clodic, Elisabeth Pacherie, Michèle Guidetti, Rachid Alami & Hélène Cochet
2022. Addressing joint action challenges in HRI: Insights from psychology and philosophy. Acta Psychologica 222 ► pp. 103476 ff. DOI logo
Bischof, Andreas, Eva Hornecker, Antonia Lina Krummheuer & Matthias Rehm
2022. 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ► pp. 1234 ff. DOI logo
Funk, Michael
2022. Roboterinteraktionen. In Computer und Gesellschaft, ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Nørskov, Marco
2022. Robotification & ethical cleansing. AI & SOCIETY 37:2 ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
Romero-Garcés, Adrián, Juan Pedro Bandera, Rebeca Marfil, Martín González-García & Antonio Bandera
2022. CLARA: Building a Socially Assistive Robot to Interact with Elderly People. Designs 6:6 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Zebrowski, Robin L. & Eli B. McGraw
2022. Carving Up Participation: Sense-Making and Sociomorphing for Artificial Minds. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 16 DOI logo
Druckman, Daniel, Lin Adrian, Malene Flensborg Damholdt, Michael Filzmoser, Sabine T. Koszegi, Johanna Seibt & Christina Vestergaard
2021. Who is Best at Mediating a Social Conflict? Comparing Robots, Screens and Humans. Group Decision and Negotiation 30:2 ► pp. 395 ff. DOI logo
Lindner, Felix
2021. Soziale Robotik und KI. In Soziale Roboter, ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Seibt, Johanna
2021. Integrative Soziale Robotik. In Soziale Roboter, ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Seibt, Johanna
2022. Educational Requirements for Positive Social Robotics. In Perspectives on Digital Humanism, ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Seibt, Johanna, Christina Vestergaard & Malene F. Damholdt
2021. The Complexity of Human Social Interactions Calls for Mixed Methods in HRI. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 10:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fischer, Kerstin, Johanna Seibt, Raffaele Rodogno, Maike Kirkegård Rasmussen, Astrid Weiss, Leon Bodenhagen, William Kristian Juel & Norbert Krüger
2020. Integrative Social Robotics Hands-on. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 21:1 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue