CEIAI Governance Database
Back to the database
Record STMT-W517596Voluntary

Ethical perceptions towards real-world use of companion robots with older people and people with dementia: survey opinions among younger adults

Report State lawNorthern Europe · GBin force

This research article investigates the ethical perceptions of younger adults toward the real-world use of companion robots for older people and individuals with dementia. Through surveys following live interactions with companion robot pets, the study compares ethical issues debated in philosophical literature with the actual concerns of potential end-users and family members. Findings indicate that while philosophical literature focuses on deception and infantilisation, participants were predominantly concerned with socioeconomic equality of access and device cost, with overall low levels of instinctual ethical concern.

Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.

Who issued it

BioMed Central (BMC Geriatrics)Academic · GB
Publisher
Legal forceVoluntary
Under whose authorityState law
Judged fromfull text

Who it governs

Researchers and academicsGeneral publicAI deployers and users

Researchers, ethicists, and developers interested in stakeholder perceptions and ethical issues surrounding companion robots in aged care.

Sectors
Healthcare · aged care and dementia careResearch and science · robot ethics research

What the document contains

What's covered

This document examines empirical survey data on ethical perceptions of companion robots among younger adults, contrasting philosophical literature with stakeholder views on issues such as deception, reduced human contact, infantilisation, and cost.

What's missing

The text does not provide binding regulatory frameworks, legal enforcement mechanisms, or technical definitions of AI safety.

Key takeaways
  • Most surveyed younger adults had no immediate ethical concerns regarding companion robot use for older people.
  • The primary concern reported by participants was socioeconomic equality of access rather than philosophical issues like deception.
  • Cost is a major barrier to purchasing companion robots for older relatives.
  • Concerns raised in philosophical literature differ significantly from the priorities of real-world stakeholders.
Outline
· Abstract
· Background
· Methods
· Results
· Discussion
· Conclusions
Issued20 July 2020
Length7,341 words · 10 pages
FormatNot recorded
Scopenational

How it scores

Pending review

Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.

Accountability

2/5

Clear responsibility for AI outcomes

Potential for harm raises the additional issue of accountability [should harm result from robot implementation

Background

screening score · 2026-10-23

Fairness

3/5

Non-discrimination and equitable treatment

Another concern is equality of access, as the current cost of companion robots may be prohibitive for people of lower socioeconomic status, who would be denied the potentially therapeutic tool

Background

screening score · 2026-10-23

Human Oversight

0/5

Humans remain in control of consequential decisions

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Transparency

0/5

Openness about how AI systems work and are used

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Enforcement

0/5

Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Impact Assessment

0/5

Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use

N/A

screening score · 2026-10-23

Topics

Physical AI Governancecontext
robot_ethics companion_robots aged_care stakeholder_perceptions dementia_care