Children’s Fundamental Rights in Human-Robot Interaction Research: A Systematic Review
This systematic literature review maps existing research on social robots and children's fundamental rights against UNICEF's AI policy guidance for children. Analyzing 37 peer-reviewed papers using the PRISMA method, the authors reveal that while certain rights such as inclusion receive significant research attention (particularly for autistic children), others like accountability are severely under-researched. The study also identifies a terminology misalignment between AI/human-robot interaction research and UNICEF policy guidance, highlighting the need to bridge the gap between technical research, societal needs, and child rights protection.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, policymakers, and developers working at the intersection of child-robot interaction, artificial intelligence, and children's rights.
What the document contains
This paper presents a systematic literature review evaluating how research on social robots and children addresses the seven fundamental rights outlined in UNICEF's AI policy guidance for children. It examines existing academic literature across ACM, IEEE, and Web of Science databases to map trends, methodologies, settings, and gaps in child-robot interaction studies.
The document does not provide a new regulatory framework, binding legal standards, or technical specifications for designing child-safe robots; it strictly analyzes the state of existing academic literature.
- A systematic literature review of 37 papers reveals that current human-robot interaction research focuses heavily on a subset of children's rights while neglecting others like accountability.
- Inclusion is the most researched right in child-robot interaction, with a prominent focus on children with autism spectrum disorder rather than broader demographic or geographic diversity.
- A significant terminology misalignment exists between human-robot interaction scholarship and UNICEF policy guidance regarding terms like transparency, explainability, and accountability.
- Physical safety dominates safety-related studies in child-robot interaction, while psychological and emotional safety remain largely unexplored.
- Researchers and policymakers must establish a common terminology and integrated agenda to align social robot research with children's rights.
· 1 Introduction · 2 Methods · 3 Results - 3.1 Overview of Papers - 3.2 Accountability - 3.3 Explainability - 3.4 Fairness - 3.5 Inclusion - 3.6 Privacy - 3.7 Safety - 3.8 Transparency · 4 Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Fairness
3/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Fairness Seek to eliminate any prejudicial bias against marginalized children
Table 1
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
1/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Children and young people have the same general human rights as adults and also specific rights that recognize their particular characteristics and needs.
1 Introduction
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Safety Continuously assess and monitor AI’s impact on children throughout the entire AI development life cycle
Table 1
screening score · 2026-10-24