Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Creating “companions” for children: the ethics of designing esthetic features for robots

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Taking the term “companion” in a broad sense to include robot caregivers, playmates, assistive devices, and toys, we examine ethical issues that emerge from designing companion robots for children. We focus on the relative importance and potential ethical implications of creating robots with certain types of esthetic features. We include an examination of whether robots ought to be made to appear or act humanlike, and whether robots should be gendered. In our estimation, this line of ethical inquiry may even provide insight into the nature and appropriateness of existing institutions and widely accepted interactions among human beings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Banks MR, Willoughby LM, Banks WA (2008) Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. J Am Med Dir Assoc 9(3):173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck C, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) My robot doppelganger: a critical look at the uncanny valley. Robot and Human Interactive Communication RO-MAN

  • Belpaeme T, Morse A (2010) Time will tell—why it is too early to worry. Interact Stud 11(2):191–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein J, Pearson Y (2010) Robot caregivers: harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics Inf Technol 12(3):277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breazeal C (2002) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown WM, Price ME, Kang J, Pound N, Zhao Y, Yu H (2008) Fluctuating asymmetry and preferences for sex-typical bodily characteristics. PNAS 105(35):12938–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Capurro R (2009) Ethics and robotics. In: Nagenborg M, Capurro R (eds) Ethics and robotics. IOS Press, Heidelberg, pp 117–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter J, Davis JM, Erwin-Stewart N, Lee TR, Bransford JD, Vye N (2009) Gender representation and humanoid robots designed for domestic use. Int J Soc Robot 1:261–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceceri K (2011) My Keepon dances into stores in October! Wired Magazine. http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/10/my-keepon-dances-into-stores-in-october/. Accessed 9 Oct 2011

  • Coeckelbergh M (2011) Humans, animals, and robots: a phenomenological approach to human–robot relations. Int J Soc Rob 3(2):197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowell CR, Scheutz M, Schemerhorn P, Villano M (2009) Gendered voice and robotic entities: perceptions and reactions of male and female subjects. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (October), pp 3735–41

  • De Angeli A, Brahnam S (2006) Sex stereotypes and conversational agents. In: Proceedings of the AVI 2006 workshop on gender and interaction: real and virtual women in a male world, Venice, Italy. http://sherylbrahnam.com/papers/EN2033.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2012

  • Eyssel F, Kuchenbrandt D, Bobinger S, de Ruiter L, Hegel F (2012) ‘If You Sound Like Me, you Must Be More Human’: on the interplay of robot and user features on human–robot acceptance and anthropomorphism HRI’12. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction pages (March), pp 125–26

  • Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ (2011) Socially assistive robotics: ethical issues related to technology. IEEE Rob Autom 18(1):24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine C (2010) Delusions of gender: how our minds, society, and neurosexism create a difference. W W Norton and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fior M, Nugent S, Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Kuzyk R (2010) Children’s relationships with robots: robot is child’s new friend. J Phys Agents 4(3):9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human–robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2003). Milbrae, pp 55–60

  • Green VA, Bigler R, Catherwood D (2004) The variability and flexibility of gender-typed toy play: a close look at children’s behavioral responses to counterstereotypic models. Sex Roles 51(7–8):371–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern D, Katz JE (2012) Unveiling robotophobia and cyber-dystopianism: the role of gender, technology and religion on attitudes towards robots HRI’12. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction pages (March), pp 139–140

  • Hanson D, Olney A, Prilliman S, Mathews E, Zielke M, Hammons D, Fernandez R, Stephanou H (2005) Upending the uncanny valley. In: Cohn A (ed) Proceedings of the 20th national conference on artificial intelligence 4 (AAAI’05). AAAI Press, pp 1728–29

  • Hausman BL (1995) Changing sex: transsexualism, technology, and the idea of gender. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho C–C, MacDorman KF, Dwi Pramono ZAD (2008) Human emotion and the uncanny valley: a GLM, MDS, and Isomap analysis of robot video ratings. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (HRI ‘08). ACM, New York, pp 169–176

  • International Federation of Robotics (IFR) (2011a) Positive impact of industrial robots on employment. http://www.ifr.org/uploads/media/Metra_Martech_Study_on_robots_02.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2012

  • International Federation of Robotics (IFR) (2011b) World robotics 2011 (executive summary). http://www.worldrobotics.org/uploads/media/2011_Executive_Summary.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2012

  • Kaplan F (2004) Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. Int J Humanoid Rob 1(3):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H (2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in social and cognitive science research. Interact Stud 7(3):297–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDorman KF, Vasudevan SK, Ho C (2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI & Soc 23(4):485–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melson GF (2010) Child development robots: social forces, children’s perspectives. Interact Stud 11(2):227–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell WJ, Szerszen KA, Lu AS, Schermerhorn PW, Scheutz M, MacDorman KF (2011) A mismatch in the human realism of face and voice produces an uncanny valley. i-Perception 2(1):10–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondada F, Bonani M, Raemy X, Pugh J, Cianci C, Klaptocz A, Magnenat S, Zufferey J-C, Floreano D, Martinoli A (2009) The e-puck, a robot designed for education in engineering. In: Proceedings of the 9th conference on autonomous robot systems and competitions, vol 1, no 1, pp 59–65

  • Mori M (2012) The uncanny valley (KF MacDorman and N Kageki, Trans.) IEEE Robotics and Automation, 19(2):98–100 (Original work published in 1970). doi:10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811. http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/the-uncanny-valley. Accessed 18 June 2012

  • Nass C, Yen C (2010) The man who lied to his laptop: what machines teach us about human relationships. Penguin Group, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishida T (2009) Towards robots with good will. In: Capurro R, Nagenborg M (eds) Ethics and robotics. IOS Press, Heidelberg, pp 105–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Nomura T, Tagaki S (2011) Exploring effects of educational backgrounds and gender in human robot interaction. In: International conference on user science and engineering (i-USEr), pp 24–29

  • Parks JA (2010) Lifting the burden of women’s care work: should robots replace the human touch? Hypatia 25(1):100–120

  • Prazak B, Kronreif G, Hochgatterer A, Furst M (2004) A toy robot for physically disabled children. Technol Disabil 16:131–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber R, Schwarz N, Winkielman P (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 8(4):364–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richey S (2010) The impact of anti-assimilationist beliefs on attitudes toward immigration. Int Stud Q 54:197–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson J (2010) Gendering humanoid robots: robo-sexism in Japan. Body Soc 16(2):1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter T, Werry I, Michaud F (2008) Going into the wild in child–robot interaction studies: issues in social robotic development. Intel Serv Robot 1(2):93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2010) The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal. Interact Stud 11(2):161–190

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel M, Breazeal C, Norton MI (2009) Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2563–68

  • Tucker A (2009) Robot babies. Smithsonian Magazine (July): 56–65. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Birth-of-a-Robot.html. Accessed 8 Oct 2011

  • Turkle S (2006) A nascent robotics culture: new complicities for companionship. AAAI technical report series (July)

  • Wagner C (2009) ‘The Japanese way of robotics’: interacting ‘naturally’ with robots as a national character? In: The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (September), pp 510–515

  • Walters ML, Syrdal S, Dautenhahn K, Boekhorst R, Koay KL (2008) Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality, and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Auton Robot 24:159–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse D (2005) Japanese develop ‘female’ android. BBC News, July 27, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4714135.stm. Accessed 5 May 2012

  • Woods S, Dautenhahn K, Schulz J (2006) Exploring the design of space robots: children’s perspectives. Interact Comput 18(5–6):1390–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Institute for Ethics and Public Affairs, Old Dominion University, BAL 9018, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Yvette Pearson

  2. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 685 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0345, USA

    Jason Borenstein

Authors
  1. Yvette Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason Borenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yvette Pearson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pearson, Y., Borenstein, J. Creating “companions” for children: the ethics of designing esthetic features for robots. AI & Soc 29, 23–31 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-012-0431-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-012-0431-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation