Ethics in human-robot interaction research
This academic paper explores basic ethical and bioethical considerations required to mediate human-robot interaction across everyday settings, analyzing state-of-the-art reports and recent research advances in artificial intelligence. It examines key themes such as welfare, care, and justice, noting that adopting robotic assistance is often limited by users' apprehensions regarding ethics, security, and privacy. The study highlights that AI algorithms must be designed with embedded ethical principles to ensure safe, natural, and transparent interactions.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, developers, and practitioners in robotics and artificial intelligence who want to understand ethical considerations in human-robot interaction.
What the document contains
The document covers ethical and bioethical considerations in human-robot interaction and artificial intelligence, structured around research phases and specific themes including welfare, care, and justice. It examines technical and social challenges like privacy, autonomy, trust, transparency, deception, and machine ethics.
It does not provide legally binding regulations, explicit government enforcement mechanisms, or formal legislative standards.
- Human-robot interaction (HRI) requires minimum ethical guidelines spanning research conception, execution, and closure.
- Adoption of assistive robots is frequently limited by user concerns over ethics, data privacy, and security.
- Ethical considerations in welfare robotics can be categorized into three thematic groups: welfare, care, and justice.
- Artificial intelligence algorithms must be programmed to incorporate moral examples and ethical rules to help robots make appropriate decisions.
- Design principles such as usability, user experience, error prevention, and feedback limits are essential for safe and effective HRI.
· 1. INTRODUCTION · 2. METHOD · 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION · 4. CONCLUSION
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Responsibility, mainly by virtue of the technological autonomy of robots, their ability to choose what to do based on previous information processing and with respect to predefined goals
Results and Discussion
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
2/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Dignity as robots could impact it because they cannot care, distress, or reflect supportive emotions.
Results and Discussion
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
2/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
A crucial issue for healthcare specialists is that human care continues being a responsibility for them, control the possibilities to delegate some rut inal tasks limited beforehand
Results and Discussion
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
2/5Protection of personal data and private life
Privacy and data control, considering the right to privacy and control of personal information given the use of robots with tracking capabilities
Results and Discussion
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
2/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
HRI should consider their social and ethical impacts by including specific issues associated with HRI such as autonomy, transparency, deception, and policies
Results and Discussion
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
Results and Discussion
screening score · 2026-10-24