Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



“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- and abides by the “Non-Replacement Principle”: . 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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arkin, R. C., & Arkin, R. C.
    (1998) Behavior-based robotics. MIT press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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. 10.1007/s12369‑008‑0001‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. 10.1007/s12369‑010‑0064‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0064-9 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bickhard, M. H.
    (2009) The interactivist model. Synthese, 166(3), 547–591. 10.1007/s11229‑008‑9375‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9375-x [Google Scholar]
  5. (2017) Robot Sociality: Genuine or Simulation?InSociality and Normativity for Robots (pp.41–66). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑53133‑5_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53133-5_3 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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. 10.1007/s00146‑016‑0684‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0684-1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Breazeal, C.
    (2002) Designing Sociable Robots. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2003) Toward Sociable Robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, (42), 167–175. 10.1016/S0921‑8890(02)00373‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Campbell, R.
    (2015) The metaphysics of emergence. Springer. 10.1057/9781137502384
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137502384 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheon, E., & Su, N. M.
    (2018) Futuristic Autobiographies: Weaving Participant Narratives to Elicit Values around Robots. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp.388–397). ACM.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Coeckelbergh, M.
    (2012) Growing moral relations: Critique of moral status ascription. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137025968
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137025968 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coeckelbergh, M., J. Loh, M. Funk, J. Seibt, M. Nørskov
    (2018) Envisioning Robots in Society – Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Collingridge, D.
    (1980) The Social Control of Technology. London: St. Martin’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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, 6, 1701. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01701
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01701 [Google Scholar]
  15. Damholdt, M., Vestergaard, C., Seibt, J.
    (2019) Testing for anthropomorphizations – a case for mixed methods. InJost, C., Pedevic, B. & Grandgeorge, M. (Eds), Methods in Human-Robot Interaction Research (forthcoming). New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Darling, K., Nandy, P., & Breazeal, C.
    (2015) Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction (pp.770–775). Presented at theRobot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium, IEEE Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dautenhahn, K.
    (2013) Human-robot interaction. The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.www.interaction-design.org
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dautenhahn, K., & Billard, A.
    (1999) Studying robot social cognition within a developmental psychology framework. InAdvanced Mobile Robots, 1999. (Eurobot’99) 1999 Third European Workshop on (pp.187–194). IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dennett, Daniel C.
    (1989) The Intentional Stance. The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Duffy, B. R., Rooney, C., O’Hare, G. M., & O’Donoghue, R.
    (1999) What is a Social Robot?Presented at the10th Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Cognitive Science, University College Cork, Ireland, 1–3 September, 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Duffy, B. R.
    (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 177–190. 10.1016/S0921‑8890(02)00374‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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. doi:  10.1007/s12369‑017‑0439‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0439-2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fiebich, A.
    (2017) Social Cognition, Empathy and Agent-Specificities in Cooperation. Topoi, 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fiebich, A., Nguyen, N., & Schwarzkopf, S.
    (2015) Cooperation with robots? A two-dimensional approach. InCollective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems (pp.25–43). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑15515‑9_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15515-9_2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K.
    (2003) A Survey of Socially Interactive Robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, (42), 143–166. 10.1016/S0921‑8890(02)00372‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X [Google Scholar]
  26. Friedman, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., & Borning, A.
    (1997) Value sensitive design and information systems. InP. Zhang, & D. Galetta (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems (pp.348–372). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gallagher, S., & Varga, S.
    (2014) Social constraints on the direct perception of emotions and intentions. Topoi, 33(1), 185–199. 10.1007/s11245‑013‑9203‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-013-9203-x [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodrich, M. A., & Schultz, A. C.
    (2007) Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 203–275. doi:  10.1561/1100000005
    https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000005 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hakli, R. & Seibt, J.
    (Eds) (2017) Sociality and normativity for robots – philosophical investigations. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑53133‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53133-5 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hannibal, G., & Lindner, F.
    (2018) Transdisciplinary Reflections on Social Robotics in Academia and Beyond. InM. Coeckelbergh, J. Loh, M. Funk, J. Seibt, M. Nørskov (Eds.), Envisioning Social Robots—Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hasse, C.
    (2015) Multistable roboethics. Technoscience and Postphenomenology: The Manhattan Papers. Books, Lexington, 169–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2019a) The Vitruvian robot. AI & Society, 34(1), 91–93. 10.1007/s00146‑017‑0701‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0701-z [Google Scholar]
  33. Hasse, C., Trentemøller, S., & Sorenson, J.
    (2019) Special Issue on Ethnography in Human-Robot Interaction Research. Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 10(1), 180–181. 10.1515/pjbr‑2019‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2019-0015 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hasse, C., & D. M. Søndergaard
    (Eds.) (2019b), Designing robots, designing humans. New York: Routledge 2019 10.4324/9781315227207
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315227207 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. Jost, C., Podevic, B., & Grandgeorge, M.
    (2020) Methods in Human Robot Interaction. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 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 the5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 123–124. IEEE Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 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. InProceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction – HRI ’11 (p.159). Lausanne, Switzerland: ACM Press. 10.1145/1957656.1957710
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1957656.1957710 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Leite, I.
    (2015) Long-term interactions with empathic social robots. AI Matters, 1(3), 13–15. 10.1145/2735392.2735397
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2735392.2735397 [Google Scholar]
  41. Manyika, J., Chui, M., Miremadi, M., Bughin, J., George, K., Willmott, K., & Dewhurst, M.
  42. Misselhorn, C.
    (2015) Collective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems: Explanation, Implementation and Simulation (Vol.122). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑15515‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15515-9 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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. 10.3233/978‑1‑61499‑931‑7‑212
    https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-931-7-212 [Google Scholar]
  44. 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. 10.1142/S0219843608001297
    https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219843608001297 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
  46. 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 AndersenWhat Social Robots Can and Should Do – Proceedings of the Robophilosophy 2016 conference IOS, Amsterdam, 210–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Payr, S.
    (2018) In Search of a Narrative for Human–Robot Relationships. Cybernetics and Systems, 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Robertson, J.
    (2017) Robo Sapiens Japanicus: Robots, Gender, Family, and the Japanese Nation. Univ of California Press. 10.1525/california/9780520283190.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520283190.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sabanovic, S.
    (2007) Making Friends: Building Social Robots through Interdisciplinary Collaboration. https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2007/SS-07-07/SS07-07-016.pdf
  50. Šabanović, S.
    (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 439–450. 10.1007/s12369‑010‑0066‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0066-7 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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. 10.1007/s00146‑015‑0636‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0636-1 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sabelli, A. M., Kanda, T., & Hagita, N.
    (2011) A conversational robot in an elderly care center: An ethnographic study. 37–44. ACM.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 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]
  54. Seibt, J.
    (2014b) Varieties of the ‘as if’: Five ways to simulate an action. InSeibt, J., Hakli, R. & Nørskov, M. (Eds.), Sociable robots and the future of social relations–Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2014 (Vol.273, pp.97–105). IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Seibt, J., Nørskov, M. & Schack Andersen, S.
    (2016a) What Social Robots Can and Should Do – Proceedings of Robophilosophy/TRANSOR 2016Amsterdam: /IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Seibt, J.
    (2016b) Integrative Social Robotics – A new method paradigm to solve the description problem and the regulation problem?InSeibt, 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]
  57. (2016c) Integrative Social Robotics – Semper Ardens Project Carlsberg Foundation. RetrievedNovember 3, 2018, fromwww.carlsbergfondet.dk/en/Forskningsaktiviteter/Forskningsprojekter/Semper-Ardens-forskningsprojekter/NN_Integrative-Social-Robotics
  58. (2016d) How to naturalize intentionality and sensory consciousness within a process monism with gradient normativity. InO’Shea, J. (Ed.), Sellars and His Legacy (pp.187–221). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198766872.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198766872.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2017) Towards an Ontology of Simulated Social Interaction: Varieties of the “As If” for Robots and Humans. InHakli, R. & Seibt, J. (Eds), Sociality and Normativity for Robots (pp.11–39). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑53133‑5_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53133-5_2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Seibt, J., Damholdt, M., Vestergaard, C.
    (2018) Five principles of intergrative social robotics. InCoeckelbergh, 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]
  61. Seibt, J.
    (2018) Classifying Forms and Modes of Co-Working in the Ontology of Asymmetric Social Interactions (OASIS). InCoeckelbergh, 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]
  62. (2020) How to describe human ‘social’ interactions with robots – the ontology of simulated sociality (OASIS). InSeibt, J., Hakli, R. & Nørskov, M. (Eds), Robophilosophy – Philosophy of, for, and by social robotics (forthcoming). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sekiyama, K.
    (1999) Toward social robotics. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(3), 213–238. 10.1080/088395199117405
    https://doi.org/10.1080/088395199117405 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sharkey, N.
    (2008) The ethical frontiers of robotics. Science, 322(5909), 1800–1801. 10.1126/science.1164582
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1164582 [Google Scholar]
  65. 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. 10.1007/s10676‑014‑9338‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9338-5 [Google Scholar]
  66. 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. 10.1007/s10676‑010‑9234‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6 [Google Scholar]
  67. 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, 374(1771), 20180037. 10.1098/rstb.2018.0037
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0037 [Google Scholar]
  68. Smedegaard, C.
    (2019) Reframing the role of novelty within social hri: from noise to information. In14th annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sparrow, R.
    (2016) Robots in aged care: a dystopian future?. AI & society, 31(4), 445–454. 10.1007/s00146‑015‑0625‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0625-4 [Google Scholar]
  70. Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L.
    (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines, 16(2), 141–161. 10.1007/s11023‑006‑9030‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6 [Google Scholar]
  71. Sung, J., Christensen, H. I., & Grinter, R. E.
    (2009) Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use. InProceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction – HRI ’09 (p.45). La Jolla, California, USA: ACM Press. doi:  10.1145/1514095.1514106
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514106 [Google Scholar]
  72. Turkle, S.
    (2011) Alone Together. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 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. 10.1002/9781118551424.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  74. van de Poel, I.
    (2015) Design for Values. InSocial Responsibility and Science Innovation Economy (P. Kawalec, R.P. Wierzchoslawski, pp.115–165). Lublin: Learned Soceity of KUL.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Van Wynsberghe, A.
    (2013) Designing robots for care: Care centered value-sensitive design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 407–433. 10.1007/s11948‑011‑9343‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6 [Google Scholar]
  76. 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. 10.1007/s12369‑009‑0024‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0024-4 [Google Scholar]
  77. Weiss, A., Bernhaupt, R., & Tscheligi, M.
    (2011) The USUS evaluation framework for user-centered HRI. New Frontiers in Human–Robot Interaction, 2, 89–110. 10.1075/ais.2.07wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.2.07wei [Google Scholar]
  78. Wiese, E., Metta, G., & Wykowska, A.
    (2017) Robots As Intentional Agents: Using Neuroscientific Methods to Make Robots Appear More Social. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01663 [Google Scholar]
  79. Wieland, W.
    (1999) Platon und die Formen des Wissens. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Wykowska, A., Chaminade, T., & Cheng, G.
    (2016) Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 371(1693), 20150375. 10.1098/rstb.2015.0375
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0375 [Google Scholar]
  81. Zawieska, K., & Stańczyk, A.
    (2015) Anthropomorphic language in robotics. Presented at theWorkshop Bridging the Gap between HRI and Robot Ethics Research at the 7th International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 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. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑8702‑8_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8702-8_10 [Google Scholar]
  83. 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, 7, 55–66. 10.1515/pjbr‑2016‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2016-0005 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error