Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

3. Social Robots and Society

Chapter of: Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies: An Introduction(pp. 53–82)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.1
  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title3. Social Robots and Society
ContributorSven Nyholm(author)
Cindy Friedman(author)
Michael T. Dale(author)
Anna Puzio(author)
Dina Babushkina(author)
Guido Löhr(author)
Arthur Gwagwa(author)
Bart A. Kamphorst(author)
Giulia Perugia(author)
Wijnand IJsselsteijn(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0366.03
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0366/chapters/10.11647/obp.0366.03
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightSven Nyholm et al.
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2023-09-05
Long abstractAdvancements in artificial intelligence and (social) robotics raise pertinent questions as to how these technologies may help shape the society of the future. The main aim of the chapter is to consider the social and conceptual disruptions that might be associated with social robots, and humanoid social robots in particular. This chapter starts by comparing the concepts of robots and artificial intelligence, and briefly explores the origins of these expressions. It then explains what a social robot is, as well as what humanoid robots are. A key notion in this context is the idea of anthropomorphism: the human tendency to attribute human qualities, not only to our fellow human beings, but also to parts of nature and to technologies. This tendency to anthropomorphize technologies by responding to and interacting with them as if they have human qualities is one of the reasons why social robots – in particular social robots designed to look and behave like human beings – can be socially disruptive. As is explained in the chapter, while some ethics researchers think that anthropomorphization is a mistake that can lead to various forms of deception, others – including both ethics researchers and social roboticists – believe it can be useful or fitting to treat robots in anthropomorphizing ways. The chapter explores that disagreement by, among other things, considering recent philosophical debates about whether social robots can be moral patients; that is, whether it can make sense to treat them with moral consideration. Where one stands on this issue will depend on one’s views about whether social robots can have, imitate, or represent morally relevant properties, or on how people relate to social robots in their interactions with them. Lastly, the chapter urges that the ethics of social robots should explore intercultural perspectives, and highlights some recent research on ubuntu ethics and social robots.
Page rangepp. 53–82
Print length30 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Sven Nyholm

(author)
Professor of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3836-5932

Sven Nyholm is a Professor of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. His research explores how new developments in artificial intelligence and robotics are related to traditional topics within moral philosophy, such as moral responsibility, well-being and meaning in life, and our human self-understanding. ORCID: 0000-0002-3836-5932

Cindy Friedman

(author)
PhD candidate, Ethics Institute at Utrecht University
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4901-9680

Cindy Friedman is a PhD candidate at the Ethics Institute, Utrecht University. Her research focuses on the ethics of social robots, with a particular focus on humanoid robots, and the ethics of human-robot interaction. ORCID: 0000-0002-4901-9680

Michael T. Dale

(author)
Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Hampden–Sydney College
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7827-5248

Michael T. Dale is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Hampden-Sydney College. He is currently interested in exploring to what extent empirical findings can have implications for the ethics of artificial intelligence and social robotics. ORCID: 0000-0001-7827-5248

Anna Puzio

(author)
Postdoctoral Researcher of Philosophy and Ethics at University of Twente
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8339-6244

Anna Puzio is a Postdoctoral Researcher of Philosophy and Ethics at the University of Twente where she works on the anthropology and ethics of technology, transhumanism, new materialism, robotics, reproductive technologies, diversity in AI and environmental ethics. ORCID: 0000-0002-8339-6244

Dina Babushkina

(author)
Assistant Professor (Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences at University of Twente
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4899-8319

Dina Babushkina is an Assistant Professor in philosophy of technology & society at the University of Twente. She researches the ways AI (and social robotics) affect, change, and disrupt interpersonal relationships, personhood and human lived experiences, with special attention to human cognitive practices and decision making. ORCID: 0000-0003-4899-8319

Guido Löhr

(author)
Assistant Professor of Logic and AI at Vrije University Amsterdam
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7028-3515

Guido Löhr is an Assistant Professor of Logic and AI at Vrije University Amsterdam. They work on various topics in philosophy of language, social ontology and philosophy of technology with a focus on concepts. ORCID: 0000-0002-7028-3515

Arthur Gwagwa

(author)
PhD candidate, Ethics Institute at Utrecht University
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9287-3025

Arthur Gwagwa is a PhD candidate at the Ethics Institute at Utrecht University. His research focuses on anti-domination approaches in new frontier technological and data relationships between the Global North and China on the one hand and the Global South on the other. ORCID: 0000-0001-9287-3025

Bart A. Kamphorst

(author)
Postdoctoral Researcher at Wageningen University & Research
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7209-2210

Bart A. Kamphorst is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Wageningen University & Research. He works on philosophical, ethical, and societal questions related to AI-driven behavior change technologies, particularly in the health domain. ORCID: 0000-0002-7209-2210

Giulia Perugia

(author)
Assistant Professor, Human-Technology Interaction at Eindhoven University of Technology
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1248-0526

Giulia Perugia is an Assistant Professor at the Human-Technology Interaction group of Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e). As a social scientist, her research lies at the intersection of Social Robotics, Social Psychology, and Ethical and Inclusive HRI. ORCID: 0000-0003-1248-0526

Wijnand IJsselsteijn

(author)
Full Professor of Cognition and Affect in Human-Technology Interaction at Eindhoven University of Technology
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6856-9269

Wijnand IJsselsteijn is a Full Professor of Cognition and Affect in Human-Technology Interaction at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), scientific director of the interdisciplinary Center for Humans and Technology at TU/e, scientific board member of the Eindhoven AI Systems Institute (EAISI), and part-time professor at the Jheronimus Academy of Data Science (JADS). He researches the impact of media technology on human psychology, and the use of psychology to improve technology design. ORCID: 0000-0001-6856-9269

References
  1. Asada, Minoru. 2019. ‘Artificial pain may induce empathy, morality, and ethics in the conscious mind of robots’, Philosophies, 4(3): 38, https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies4030038
  2. Babushkina, Dina. 2021a. ‘Robots to Blame?’, in Culturally Sustainable Social Robotics: Proceedings of Robophilosophy Conference 2020, ed. by Marco Nørskov, Johanna Seibt, and Oliver Santiago Quick (Amsterdam: IOS Press), 305–15, https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA200927
  3. ——. 2021b. ‘What does it mean for a robot to be respectful?’, Techné, 26(1): 1–30, https://doi.org/10.5840/techne2022523158
  4. ——. 2022. ‘Are we justified to attribute a mistake in diagnosis to an AI diagnostic system?’, AI & Ethics, 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00189-x
  5. Babushkina, Dina, and Athanasios Votsis. 2021. ‘Disruption, technology and the question of (Artificial) Identity’, AI & Ethics, 2: 611–22, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00110-y
  6. Behdadi, Dorna, and Christian Munthe. 2020. ‘A normative approach to artificial moral agency’, Minds and Machines, 30: 195–218, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09525-8
  7. Bender, Emily M., Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. ‘On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?’, FAccT ’21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–23, https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  8. Birhane, Abeba, and Jelle van Dijk. 2020. ‘Robot rights? Let’s talk about human welfare instead’, Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 207–13, https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375855
  9. Breazeal, Cynthia. 2003. ‘Toward sociable robots’, Robotics and autonomous systems, 42(3–4): 167–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1
  10. Bryson, Joanna. 2010. ‘Robots should be slaves’, in Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical and Design Issues, ed. by Yorick Wilks (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 63–74, https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.8.11bry
  11. ——. 2022. ‘One day, AI will seem as human as anyone. What then?’, Wired, https://www.wired.com/story/lamda-sentience-psychology-ethics-policy/
  12. Burch, James. 2018. ‘Beloved robot dogs honored in funeral ceremony’, National Geographic, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/in-japan--a-buddhist-funeral-service-for-robot-dogs
  13. Čapek, Karel. 1928. R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots): A Play in Three Acts and an Epilogue (London: Humphrey Milford; Oxford University Press)
  14. Chalmers, David. 2022. ‘Are large language models sentient?’, NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program, https://youtu.be/-BcuCmf00_Y
  15. Chen, Bei, Simon Marvin, and Aidan While. 2020. ‘Containing COVID-19 in China: AI and the robotic restructuring of future cities’, Dialogues in Human Geography, 10: 238–41, https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820620934267
  16. Carpinella, Colleen, Alisa Wyman, Michael Perez, and Steven Stroessner. 2017. ‘The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS): Development and validation’, HRI ’17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 254–62, https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020208
  17. Cialdini, Robert. 2009. Influence: Science and Practice (Boston: Pearson Education)
  18. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2010a. ‘Robot rights? Towards a social-relational justification of moral justification’, Ethics and Information Technology, 12: 209–21, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9235-5
  19. ——. 2010b. ‘Moral appearances: Emotions, robots, and human morality’, Ethics and Information Technology, 12: 235–41, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9221-y
  20. Damiano, Luisa, and Paul Damouchel. 2018. ‘Anthropomorphism in human-robot co-evolution’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 468, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468
  21. Danaher, John. 2019. ‘The rise of the robots and the crisis of moral patiency’, AI & Society, 34: 129–36, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0773-9
  22. ——. 2020. ‘Robot betrayal: A guide to the ethics of robotic deception’, Ethics & Information Technology, 22(2): 117–28, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09520-3
  23. Danaher, John, and Neil McArthur. 2017. Robot Sex and Consent: Social and Ethical Implications (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  24. Darling, Kate. 2016. ‘Extending legal protection to social robots: The effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects’, in Robot Law, ed. by Ryan Calo, A. Michael Froomkin, and Ian Kerr (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing), 213–31, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783476732.00017
  25. De Graaf, Maartje. 2016. ‘An ethical evaluation of human-robot relationships’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 8: 589–98, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0368-5
  26. Devlin, Kate. 2018. Turned On: Science, Sex, and Robots (London: Bloomsbury)
  27. Dignum, Virginia. 2019. Responsible Artificial Intelligence (Berlin: Springer), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30371-6
  28. Elgarf, Maha, Natalia Calvo-Barajas, Patricia Alves-Oliveira, Giulia Perugia, Ginevra Castellano, Chirstopher Peters, and Ana Paiva. 2022. ‘“And then what happens?” Promoting children’s verbal creativity using a robot’, 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 71–79, https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889408
  29. Epley, Nicholas, Adam Waytz, and John Cacioppo. 2007. ‘On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism’, Psychological Review, 114(4): 864–86, https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864
  30. Floridi, Luciano, and Jeff Sanders. 2004. ‘On the morality of artificial agents’, Minds and Machines, 14(3): 349–79, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d
  31. Floridi, Luciano. 2013. The Ethics of Information (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  32. Fogg, Brian, and Clifford Nass. 1997. ‘How users reciprocate to computers: An experiment that demonstrates behavior change’, CHI ’97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 331–32, https://doi.org/10.1145/1120212.1120419
  33. Frank, Lily, and Sven Nyholm. 2017. ‘Robot sex and consent: Is consent to sex between a robot and a human conceivable, possible, and desirable?’, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3): 305–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9212-y
  34. Frennert, Susanne, and Britt Östlund. 2014. ‘Review: Seven matters of concern of social robots and older people’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2): 299–310, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0225-8
  35. Friedman, Cindy. 2022. ‘Ethical concerns with replacing human relations with humanoid robots: An Ubuntu perspective’, AI & Ethics, 3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00186-0
  36. Friedman, Cindy, Sven Nyholm, and Lily Frank. 2022. ‘Emotional embodiment in humanoid sex and love robots’, in Social Robotics and the Good Life: The Normative Side of Forming Emotional Bonds with Robots, ed. by Janina Loh amd Wulf Loh (Bielefeld: transcript), 233–56
  37. Gal, Danit. 2020. ‘Perspectives and approaches in AI ethics: East Asia’, in Oxford Handbook of Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, ed. by Markus Dubber, Frank Pasquale, Sunit Das (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 607–24, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.39
  38. Gladden, Mathew. 2019. ‘Who will be the members of society 5.0? Towards an anthropology of technologically posthumanized future societies’, Social Science, 8(5): 148–86, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8050148
  39. Gogoshin, Dane Leigh. 2021. ‘Robot responsibility and moral community’, Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8(768092), https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.768092
  40. Gordon, John-Stewart, and Sven Nyholm. 2021. ‘The ethics of artificial intelligence’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/ethics-of-artificial-intelligence/
  41. Gouldner, Alvin. 1960. ‘The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement’, American Sociological Review, 25(2): 161–78, https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
  42. Graham, Elaine. 1999. ‘Words made flesh: Women, embodiment and practical theology’, Feminist Theology, 7(21): 109–21, https://doi.org/10.1177/096673509900002108
  43. Guidi, Stefano, Latisha Boor, Laura van der Bij, Robin Foppen, Okke Rikmenspoel, and Giulia Perugia. 2023. ‘Ambivalent stereotypes towards gendered robots: The (im)mutability of bias towards female and neutral robots’, Social Robotics: 14th International Conference, ICSR 2022, Florence, Italy, December 13–16, 2022, Proceedings, Part II (Cham: Springer), 615–26, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24670-8_54
  44. Gunkel, David. 2018. Robot Rights (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  45. ——. 2023. Person, Robot, Thing (Cambridge: MIT Press)
  46. Haraway, Donna. 1985. ‘A cyborg manifesto’, Socialist Review, 80: 65–108.
  47. Heider, Fritz, and Marianne Simmel. 1944. ‘An experimental study of apparent behavior’, The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–59, https://doi.org/10.2307/1416950
  48. Japan Advisory Board on Artificial Intelligence and Human Society. 2017. Report on Artificial Intelligence and Human Society, http://ai-elsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/JSAI-Ethical-Guidelines-1.pdf
  49. Kahn, Peter. Hiroshi Ishiguro, Batya Friedman, Takayuki Kanda, Nathan G. Freier, Rachel L. Severson, and Jessica Miller. 2006. ‘What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human–robot interaction’, Interaction Studies, 8(3): 364–71, https://doi.org/10.1075/is.8.3.04kah
  50. Kidd, Cory, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2008. ‘Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction’, 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 3230–35, https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2008.4651113
  51. Kitano, Naho. 2015. ‘Animism, Rinri, modernization; The base of Japanese Robotics’, School of Social Sciences, Waseda University, http://documents.mx/documents/kitano-animism-rinri-modernization-the-base-of-japanese-robots.html
  52. Levy, David. 2008. Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships (New York: Harper Perennial), https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2008.930875
  53. Loh, Janina. 2019. Roboterethik: Eine Einführung (Stuttgart: Suhrkamp)
  54. ——. 2022. ‘Posthumanism and ethics’, in Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism, ed. by Stefan Herbrechter, Ivan Callus, Manuela Rossini, Marija Grech, Megen de Bruin-Molé, and Christopher John Müller (London: Palgrave Macmillan), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1_34-1
  55. Löhr, Guido. 2022. ‘Linguistic interventions and the ethics of conceptual disruption’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 25: 835–49, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-022-10321-9
  56. Lorenz, Tamara, Astrid Weiss, and Sandra Hirche. 2016. ‘Synchrony and reciprocity: Key mechanisms for social companion robots in therapy and care’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(1): 125–43, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0325-8
  57. Macrorie, Rachel, Simon Marvin, and Aidan While. 2021. ‘Robotics and automation in the city: A research agenda’, Urban Geography, 42(2): 197–217, https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1698868
  58. Metzinger, Thomas. 2013. ‘Two principles for robot ethics’ in Robotik und Gesetzgebung, ed. by Eric Hilgendorf and Jan-Philipp Günther (Baden-Baden: Nomos), 263–302, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845242200-263
  59. Mitchell, Gary, and Hugh O’Donnell. 2013. ‘The therapeutic use of doll therapy in dementia’, British Journal of Nursing, 22(6), 329–34, https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2013.22.6.329
  60. Müller, Vincent. 2021. ‘Is it time for robot rights? Moral status in artificial entities’, Ethics and Information Technology, 23(3): 579–87, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09596-w
  61. Munn, Nick, and Dan Weijers. 2022. ‘Corporate responsibility for the termination of digital friends’, AI & Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01276-z
  62. Nass, Clifford, and Youngme Moon. 2000. ‘Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers’, Journal of Social Issues, 56: 81–103, https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
  63. Nyholm, Sven. 2020. Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism (London: Rowman & Littlefield)
  64. ——. 2021. ‘The ethics of human-robot interaction and traditional moral theories’, in The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics, ed. by Carissa Véliz (Oxford: Oxford University Press), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198857815.013.3
  65. ——. 2022. ‘A new control problem? Humanoid robots, artificial intelligence, and the value of control’, AI & Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00231-y
  66. ——. 2023. This is Technology Ethics: An Introduction (New York: Wiley-Blackwell)
  67. Nyholm, Sven, and Lily Frank. 2019. ‘It loves me, it loves me not: Is it morally problematic to design sex robots that appear to “love” their owners?’, Techné, 23: 402–24, https://doi.org/10.5840/techne2019122110
  68. Paetzel-Prüsmann, Maike, Giulia Perugia, and Ginevra Castellano. 2021. ‘The influence of robot personality on the development of uncanny feelings’, Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106756, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106756
  69. Perugia, Giulia, Stefano Guidi, Margherita Bicchi, and Oronzo Parlangeli. 2022. ‘The shape of our bias: Perceived age and gender in the humanoid robots of the ABOT database’, 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 110–19, https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889366
  70. Perugia, Giulia, and Dominika Lisy. 2022. ‘Robot’s gendering trouble: A scoping review of gendering humanoid robots and its effects on HRI’, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01130, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.01130
  71. Puzio, Anna. 2022. ‘Über-Menschen’, in Philosophische Auseinandersetzung mit der Anthropologie des Transhumanismus (Bielefeld: transcript Verlag), https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839463055
  72. Puzio, Anna. 2023.: ‘Robot theology: On theological engagement with robotics and religious robots’, in Alexa, Wie Hast Du’s Mit der Religion? Theologische Zugänge zu Technik und Künstlicher Intelligenz, ed. by Anna Puzio, Nicole Kunkel, and Hendrik Klinge (Darmstadt: wbg academic), 95–114.
  73. Rani, Anita. 2013. ‘The Japanese men who prefer virtual girlfriends to sex’, BBC News Magazine, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24614830
  74. Richardson, Kathleen. 2015. ‘The asymmetric “relationship”: Parallels between prostitution and the development of sex robots’, SIGCAS Computers & Society, 45(3): 290–93, https://doi.org/10.1145/2874239.2874281
  75. Russell, Stuart, and Peter Norvig. 2005. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Hoboken: Prentice Hall)
  76. Sætra, Henrik. 2022. ‘Robotomorphy: Becoming our creations’, AI & Ethics, 2(1): 5–13, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00092-x
  77. Sandoval, Eduardo Benítez, Jürgen Brandstetter, Mohammad Obaid, and Christoph Bartneck. 2016. ‘Reciprocity in human-robot interaction: A quantitative approach through the prisoner’s dilemma and the ultimatum game’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2): 303–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0323-x
  78. Seibt, Johanna. 2016. ‘Integrative social robotics—a new method paradigm to solve the description problem and the regulation problem?’, in What Social Robots Can and Should Do. Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2016, ed. by Johanna Seibt, Marco Nørskov, and Søren Schack Andersen (Amsterdam: IOS Press), 104–15, https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-708-5-104
  79. Schwitzgebel, Eric, and Mara Garza. 2015. ‘A defense of the rights of artificial intelligences’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 39(1): 98–119, https://doi.org/10.1111/misp.12032
  80. Sharkey, Noel. 2018. ‘Mama Mia, it’s Sophia: A show robot or dangerous platform to mislead?’, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/noelsharkey/2018/11/17/mama-mia-its-sophia-a-show-robot-or-dangerous-platform-to-mislead/
  81. Sharkey, Amanda, and Noel Sharkey. 2012. ‘Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly’, Ethics and Information Technology, 14: 27–40, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6
  82. Sharkey, Amanda, and Noel Sharkey. 2021. ‘We need to talk about deception in social robotics!’, Ethics and Information Technology, 23: 309–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6
  83. Sparrow, Robert, and Linda Sparrow. 2006. ‘In the hands of machines? The future of aged care’, Minds and Machines, 16: 141–61, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6
  84. Sparrow, Robert. 2017. ‘Robots, rape, and representation’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(4): 465–77, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0413-z
  85. ——. 2021. ‘Virtue and vice in our relationships with robots: Is there an asymmetry and how might it be explained?’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(1): 23–29, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00631-2
  86. Spatola, Nicolas, and Thierry Chaminade. 2022. ‘Cognitive load increases anthropomorphism of humanoid robots. The automatic path of anthropomorphism’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 167: 102884, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102884
  87. Strasser, Anna. 2022. ‘Distributed responsibility in human-machine interactions’, AI & Ethics, 2: 523–32, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00109-5
  88. Sullins III, John. P. 2006. ‘When is a robot a moral agent?’, The International Review of Information Ethics 6: 23–30, https://doi.org/10.29173/irie136
  89. Thweatt, Jennifer. 2018. ‘Cyborg-Christus: Transhumanismus und die Heiligkeit des Körpers’, in Designobjekt Mensch. Die Agenda des Transhumanismus auf dem Prüfstand, ed. by Benedikt Göcke and Frank Meier-Hamidi (Freiburg: Herder), 363–76
  90. Tickle-Degnen, Linda, and Robert Rosenthal. 1990. ‘The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates’, Psychological Inquiry, 1(4): 285–93, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1
  91. Tummers-Heemels, Ans, Rens Brankaert, and Wijnand Ijsselsteijn. 2021. ‘Between benevolent lies and harmful deception: Reflecting on ethical challenges in dementia care technology’, Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine, 19: 15–20.
  92. Turkle, Sherry. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (New York: Basic Books)
  93. ——. 2020. ‘A nascent robotics culture: New complicities for companionship’, in Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics, ed. by Wendell Wallach and Peter Asaro (London: Routledge, 107–16), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003074991
  94. Véliz, Carissa. 2021. ‘Moral zombies: Why algorithms are not moral agents’, AI & Society, 36: 487–97, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01189-x
  95. Van Wynsberghe, Aimee. 2022. ‘Social robots and the risks to reciprocity’, AI & Society, 37: 479–85, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01207-y
  96. Wagner, Alan, and Ronald Arkin. 2011. ‘Acting deceptively: Providing robots with the capacity for deception’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(1): 5–26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0073-8
  97. Wagner, Alan. 2016. ‘Lies and deception: Robots that use falsehood as a social strategy’, in Robots That Talk and Listen: Technology and Social Impact, ed. by Judith Markowitz (Berlin: de Gruyter), 203–25, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514404
  98. Wareham, Christopher. 2021. ‘Artificial intelligence and African conceptions of personhood’, Ethics and Information Technology, 23(2): 127–36, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09541-3
  99. Wilks, Yorick. 2010. ‘Introducing artificial companions’, in Close Engagements with Artificial Companions, ed. by Yorick Wilks (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.8
  100. Zhao, Shanyang. 2006. ‘Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication’, New Media & Society, 8(3): 401–19, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061951