Robots with all kinds of functionalities are currently being developed to address a large range of possible
tasks; for instance, while they are already very common in factories for very repetitive, often high-risk tasks, researchers
are now working on robots that can be programmed by workers themselves so that they can address even more tasks and work
flexibly among human workers. Similarly, robots are being developed to work in the service industry, for instance, as waiters,
receptionists or delivery robots. Furthermore, researchers are working on robots that can support work in elderly care, where
robots are expected to assist care personnel especially on the time consuming or hard tasks, like feeding or lifting
respectively, but also to entertain, engage, comfort or guide. Similarly, robots are developed to instruct and entertain
children, to tutor them in math or in a second language or to provide them with company in adverse circumstances, like
long-term hospitalization. In general, robots are being developed to assist with or take over a large range of tasks hitherto
reserved to humans. Robots thus come in a multitude of different forms, functionalities and behaviors; for instance, they may
resemble people or animals, but they may also come in the form of moving boxes, drones or robotic arms. While there is no
single accepted definition of robots, robots are typically embodied such that they have physical bodies (though many robots
have ‘digital twins’, i.e. they may be simulated), and they have sensing capabilities with which they take aspects of their
context into account, as well as the capability to act upon this context to interact with the world (cf. Dautenhahn et al. 2002).
References
Allwood, Jens, Joachim Nivre, and Elisabeth Ahlsén
1992 “On
the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback.” Journal of
Semantics 9 (1): 1–26.
Alm, Maria, Jardar
Eggesbø Abrahamsen, Åsa Abelin, Egil Albertsen, and Jacques Koreman
2021 “Parameters
of tonal variation in and between three Scandinavian
languages.” In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference
on Tone and Intonation (TAI), Sonderborg,
Denmark, 278–282.
Andrist, Sean, Erin Spannan, and Bilge Mutlu
2013 “Rhetorical
robots: Making robots more effective speakers using linguistic cues of
expertise.” In 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), 341–348.
Andrist, Sean, Xiang
Zhi Tan, Michael Gleicher, and Bilge Mutlu
2014 “Conversational
gaze aversion for humanlike robots.” In Proceedings of the 2014
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot
Interaction, 25–32.
Andrist, Sean, Micheline Ziadee, Halim Boukaram, Bilge Mutlu, and Majd Sakr
2015 “Effects
of culture on the credibility of robot speech: A comparison between English and
Arabic.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human–Robot
Iinteraction, 157–164.
Asadi, Ali, and Kerstin Fischer
2023 “The
effect of an empathy-eliciting intervention on the perception of telepresence robot
users.” In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced
Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), 90–94.
Asadi, Ali, Erica Chinzer, Davide Marocco, and Kerstin Fischer
2024 “Mitigating
the negative effect of telepresence robots via an empathy-eliciting robot
moderator.” In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Metrology
for eXtended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering
(MetroXRAINE), 1182–1187.
Bu, Frank, Kerstin Fischer, and Wendy Ju
2025 “Making
sense of robots in public spaces: A study of trash barrel robots.” ACM Transactions in
Human–Robot
Interaction 14 (4): 1–21.
Carter, Elizabeth
J., Samantha Reig, Xiang
Zhi Tan, Gierad Laput, Stephanie Rosenthal, and Aaron Steinfeld
2020 “Death
of a robot: Social media reactions and language usage when a robot stops
operating.” In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 589–597.
Chang, Wan-Ling, and Selma Šabanović
2015 “Studying
socially assistive robots in their organizational context: Studies with paro in a nursing
home.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction Extended
Abstracts, 227–228.
Chun, Bohkyung, and Heather Knight
2020 “The
robot makers: An ethnography of anthropomorphism at a robotics company.” ACM Transactions
on Human–Robot
Interaction 9 (3): 1–36.
Clark, Herbert
H.
1996Using
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Clark, Herbert
H., and Kerstin Fischer
2023 “Social
robots as depictions of social agents.” Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 46: 1–65.
Cross, Toni
G., Terry
G. Nienhuys, and Maggie Kirkman
2014 “Parent–child
interaction with receptively disabled children: Some determinants of maternal speech
style.” In Children’s Language, ed.
by K. E. Nelson, 247–290. New
York: Psychology Press.
Dautenhahn, Kerstin, Bernard Ogden, and Tom Quick
2002 “From
embodied to socially embedded agents: Implications for interaction-aware
robots.” Cognitive Systems
Research 3 (3): 397–428.
De
Visser, Ewart
J., Marieke
M. M. Peeters, Malte
F. Jung, Spencer Kohn, Tyler
H. Shaw, Richard Pak, and Mark
A. Neerincx
2020 “Towards
a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams.” International Journal
of Social
Robotics 12 (2): 459–478.
Epley, Nicholas, Adam Waytz, and John
T. Cacioppo
2007 “On
seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism.” Psychological
Review 114 (4): 864–886.
Fischer, Kerstin
2016aDesigning
Speech for a Recipient: The Roles of Partner Modeling, Alignment and Feedback in So-Called ‘Simplified
Registers’. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Fischer, Kerstin
2016b “Robots
as confederates: How robots can and should support research in the
humanities.” In Proceedings of the Robophilosophy 2016
Conference, Aarhus, Denmark.
Fischer, Kerstin
2021 “Tracking
anthropomorphizing behavior in human–robot interaction.” ACM Transactions on Human–Robot
Interaction 11 (1): Article
4 (March 2022), 28 pages.
Fischer, Kerstin, and Alicja
D. Prondzinska
2020 “Experimental
contrastive pragmatics using robots.” Contrastive
Pragmatics 1: 82–107.
Fischer, Kerstin, and Matous Jelínek
Submitted. “Towards
a systematic model of transparency for calibrating trust in social robots.”
Fischer, Kerstin, Malte Jung, Lars
C. Jensen, and Maria aus
der Wieschen
2019 “Emotional
expression by robots: When and why.” In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Daegu,
Korea.
Fischer, Kerstin, Katrin
S. Lohan, and Kilian Foth
2012 “Levels
of embodiment: Linguistic analyses of factors influencing
HRI.” In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human–Robot
Interaction, 463–470.
2020 “Studying
language attitudes using robots.” In Proceedings of the
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.
Fischer, Kerstin, Oliver Niebuhr, and Maria Alm
2021 “Robots
for foreign language learning: Speaking style influences student performance.” Frontiers
in Robotics and AI 8: 1–10.
Fischer, Kerstin, Oliver Niebuhr, and Ali Asadi
2022 “The
voice of creativity: Effects of pitch range in the voice of a robot
facilitator.” In Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation 103:
Elektronische
Sprachsignalverarbeitung, 121–130. Dresden: TUDPress.
Fischer, Kerstin, Oliver Niebuhr, Lars
Christian Jensen, and Leon Bodenhagen
2020 “Speech
melody matters: How robots can profit from using charismatic speech.” ACM Transactions in
Human–Robot Interaction 9 (1): Article
4, 1–21.
Fischer, Kerstin, Stephen Yang, Brian
K. Mok, Rohan Maheshwari, David Sirkin, and Wendy Ju
2015 “Initiating
interactions and negotiating approach: A robotic trash can in the
field.” In AAAI Spring
Symposia.
Fucinato, Karen, Oliver Niebuhr, Sladjana Nørskov, and Kerstin Fischer
2023 “Charismatic
speech features in robot instructions enhance team creativity.” Frontiers in
Communication 8: 1–12.
Fussell, Susan
R., Sara Kiesler, Leslie
D. Setlock, and Victoria Yew
2008 “How
people anthropomorphize robots.” In Proceedings of the Third
ACM/IEEE international conference on Human–robot
interaction, 145–152.
Groom, Victoria, Leila Takayama, Paloma Ochi, and Clifford Nass
2009 “I
am my robot: The impact of robot-building and robot form on
operators.” In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 31–36.
Ham, Jaap, Mirjam
van Esch, Yvonne Limpens, Jente
de Pee, John-John Cabibihan, and Shuzhi
S. Ge
2012 “The
automaticity of social behavior towards robots: the influence of cognitive load on interpersonal distance to
approachable versus less approachable robots.” Social Robotics: 4th International
Conference, ICSR 2012, Chengdu, China, October 29–31, 2012.
Proceedings 4: 15–25. Berlin: Springer.
Jarske, Salla, Kirsikka Kaipainen, Aino Ahtinen, Jari Varsaluoma, and Kaisa Väänänen
2025 “How
could social robots support societal participation? Findings from five design workshops with young
people.” International Journal of Social
Robotics 17: 563–585.
Juel, William
K., Frederik Haarslev, Eduardo
R. Ramirez, Emanuela Marchetti, Kerstin Fischer, Danish Shaikh, Poramate Manoonpong, Christian Hauch, Leon Bodenhagen, and Norbert Krüger
2020 “Smooth
robot: Design for a novel modular welfare robot.” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic
Systems 98: 19–37.
Jung, Malte, and Pamela Hinds
2018 “Robots
in the wild: A time for more robust theories of human-robot interaction.” ACM
Transactions on Human–Robot
Interaction 7 (1): 1–5.
Kahn Jr, Peter.
H., Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Brian
T. Gill, Solace Shen, Heather
E. Gary, and Jolina
H. Ruckert
2015 “Will
people keep the secret of a humanoid robot? Psychological intimacy in
HRI.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 173–180.
Kircher, Ruth
2016 “The
matched-guise technique.” In Research Methods in Intercultural
Communication: A Practical Guide, ed. by Zhu Hua, 196–211. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lambert, Wallace
E.
1967 “A social psychology of
bilingualism.” Journal of Social
Issues 23 (2): 91–109.
Langedijk, Rosalyn
M., and Kerstin Fischer
2023 “Persuasive
robots in the field.” In Persuasive
Technology, ed. by Alexander Meschtscherjakov, Cees Midden, and Jaap Ham, 251–264. Cham: Springer.
Marchesi, Serena, Davide
De Tommaso, Jairo Perez-Osorio, and Agnieszka Wykowska
2022 “Belief
in sharing the same phenomenological experience increases the likelihood of adopting the intentional stance toward a
humanoid robot.“ Technology, Mind, and
Behavior 3 (3): 1–11.
Mura, Piergiorgio
2024 “Attitudes
towards Sardinian and Italian finally compared via the matched-guise
technique.” International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 288: 121–147.
Mutlu, Bilge, and Jodi Forlizzi
2008 “Robots
in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot
interaction.” In Proceedings of the Third ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human–Robot
Interaction, 287–294.
Nass, Clifford, and Youngme Moon
2000 “Machines
and mindlessness: Social responses to computers.” Journal of Social
Issues 56 (1): 81–103.
Paetzel, Maike, and Ginevra Castellano
2019 “Let
me get to know you better: Can interactions help to overcome uncanny
feelings?” In Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Human–Agent Interaction, 59–67.
Phillips, Elizabeth, Daniel Ullman, Maartje
M. A. de Graaf, and Bertram
F. Malle
2017 “What
does a robot look like?: A multi-site examination of user expectations about robot
appearance.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting, 61 (1): 1215–1219.
Pillet-Shore, Danielle
Greeting:
Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design.” Research on Language & Social
Interaction 45 (4): 375–398.
Pitsch, Karola
2023 “Mensch–Roboter-Interaktion
als Forschungsinstrument der Interaktionalen
Linguistik.” In Linguistische Methodenreflexion im
Aufbruch, 119–152. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Pitsch, Karola, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Yuya Suzuki, Luise Sussenbach, Paul Luff, and Christian Heath
2009 “ ‘The
first five seconds’: Contingent stepwise entry into an interaction as a means to secure sustained engagement in
HRI.” In The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and
Human Interactive Communication, 985–991.
Randall, Natasha, and Selma Šabanović
2025 “Do
you want me?: Exploring differences in consumer home robot preferences, perceptions, and purchase
intent.” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot
Interaction 14 (3): Article
43, 39 pages.
Rosenthal-von der
Pütten, Astrid
M., Nicole
C. Krämer, Laura Hoffmann, Sabrina Sobieraj, and Sabrina
C. Eimler
2013 “An
experimental study on emotional reactions towards a robot.” International Journal of
Social Robotics 5: 17–34.
Rosenthal-Von Der
Pütten, Astrid
M., Frank
P. Schulte, Sabrina
C. Eimler, Sabrina Sobieraj, Laura Hoffmann, Stefan Maderwald, Matthias Brand, and Nicole
C. Krämer
2014 “Investigations
on empathy towards humans and robots using fMRI.” Computers in Human
Behavior 33: 201–212.
Rudaz, Damien, Karen Tatarian, Rebecca Stower, and Christian Licoppe
2023 “From
inanimate object to agent: Impact of pre-beginnings on the emergence of greetings with a
robot.” ACM Transactions on Human–Robot
Interaction 12 (3): 1–31.
Ruijten, Peter
A. M., Antal Haans, Jaap Ham, and Cees
J. H. Midden
2019 “Perceived
human-likeness of social robots: Testing the Rasch model as a method for measuring
anthropomorphism.” International Journal of Social
Robotics 11: 477–494.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel
A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A
simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735.
Schegloff, Emanuel
A.
1972 “Notes on a conversational
practice: Formulating place.” In Studies in Social
Interaction ed. by David
N. Sudnow, 75–119. New
York: MacMillan.
Schober, Michael
F., and Susan
E. Brennan
2003 “Processes
of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the
partner.” In Handbook of Discourse
Processes, ed. by Michael
F. Schober, David
N. Rapp, and M.
Anne Britt, 128–169. London: Routledge.
Seo, Stela
H., 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 Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human–Robot
Interaction, 125–132.
Skantze, Gabriel
2017 “Predicting
and regulating participation equality in human–robot conversations: Effects of age and
gender.” In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE
InternationalCconference on Human–Robot
Interaction, 196–204.
Stoll, Brett, Samantha Reig, Lucy He, Ian Kaplan, Malte
F. Jung, and Susan
R. Fussell
2018 “Wait,
can you move the robot? Examining telepresence robot use in collaborative
teams.” In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human–Robot
Interaction, 14–22.
Torre, Ilaria, Adrian
Benigno Latupeirissa, and Conor McGinn
2020 “How
context shapes the appropriateness of a robot’s voice.” In 2020
29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive
Communication, 215–222.
Turkle, Sherry
2020 “A
nascent robotics culture: New complicities for
companionship.” In Machine Ethics and Robot
Ethics, ed. by Wendell Wallach and Peter Asaro, 107–116. London: Routledge.
Turkle, Sherry, Cynthia Breazeal, Olivia Dasté, and Brian Scassellati
2006 “Encounters
with Kismet and Cog: Children respond to relational
artifacts.” In Digital Media: Transformations in Human
Communication, ed. by Paul Messaris and Lee Humphreys, 1–20. New
York: Peter Lang.
Wagner, Alan, and Paul Robinette
2021 “An
explanation is not an excuse: Trust calibration in an age of transparent
robots.” In: Trust in Human–Robot
Interaction, ed. by Chang
S. Nam and Joseph
B. Lyons, 197–208. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Walters, Michael
L., Kheng
L. Koay, Sarah
N. Woods, Dag
S. Syrdal, and Kerstin Dautenhahn
2007 “Robot
to human approaches: Preliminary results on comfortable distances and
preferences.” In AAAI Spring Symposium: Multidisciplinary
Collaboration for Socially Assistive
Robotics, 103–109.
Winkle, Katie, Gaspar
Isaac Melsión, Donald McMillan, and Iolanda Leite
2021 “Boosting
robot credibility and challenging gender norms in responding to abusive behaviour: A case for feminist
robots.” In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, 29–37.
Wykowska, Anna
2021 “Robots
as mirrors of the human mind.” Current Directions in Psychological
Science 30 (1): 34–40.