Cover not available
Article published In:
Social Cues in Robot Interaction, Trust and Acceptance
Edited by Alessandra Rossi, Kheng Lee Koay, Silvia Moros, Patrick Holthaus and Marcus Scheunemann
[Interaction Studies 20:3] 2019
► pp. 393–425

Children’s acceptance of social robots

A narrative review of the research 2000–2017

| Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam
| Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam
| Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam
| Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam
Social robots progressively enter children’s lives, but little is known about children’s acceptance of social robots and its antecedents. To fill this research gap, this narrative review surveyed 34 articles on child-robot interaction published between 2000 and 2017. We focused on robot, user, and interaction characteristics as potential antecedents of children’s intentional and behavioral social robot acceptance. In general, children readily accept robots. However, we found that social, adaptive robot behavior, children’s sex and age, as well as frequency of the interaction seem to affect acceptance. Additionally, we found various theoretical and methodological shortcomings in the field. The review concludes with recommendations and directions for future research on children’s acceptance of social robots.
Keywords: child-robot interaction, human-robot interaction, human-machine interaction, intention to use, technology acceptance
Article outline
  • Antecedents of robot acceptance
    • Characteristics of the robot
    • Characteristics of the user
    • Characteristics of the interaction
    • Interactions between antecedents
  • Methodological characteristics
    • General methodological characteristics
    • CRI-specific methodological characteristics
  • Method
  • Results
    • The effect of robot characteristics on acceptance
    • The effect of user characteristics on acceptance
    • The effect of interaction characteristics on acceptance
    • Interactions between antecedents
    • Methodological characteristics
  • Discussion
    • Antecedents of children’s social robot acceptance
    • Interaction between antecedents
    • The influence of methodological characteristics
  • Conclusion and future directions
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 18 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18071.jon
References (98)
References
Abe, K., Iwasaki, A., Nakamura, T., Nagai, T., Yokoyama, A., Shimotomai, T., … Omori, T. (2012). Playmate robots that can act according to a child’s mental state. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 4660–4667). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Taee, M. A., Kapoor, R., Garrett, C., & Choudhary, P. (2016). Acceptability of robot assistant in management of type 1 diabetes in children. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 18(9), 551–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, R. (2007). The legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banthia, V., Maddahi, Y., May, M., Blakley, D., Chang, Z., Gbur, A., … Sepehri, N. (2016). Development of a graphical user interface for a socially interactive robot: A case study evaluation. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (pp. 1–8). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barco, A., Van Straten, C. L., De Jong, C., Peter, J., & Kühne, R. (2018). Current technical and practical impediments to research on social robots. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Robots in Therapy and Education (pp. 19–20). Retrieved from [URL]
Baxter, P., Ashurst, E., Read, R., Kennedy, J., & Belpaeme, T. (2017). Robot education peers in a situated primary school study: Personalisation promotes child learning. PLoS ONE, 12(5), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, P., Kennedy, J., Senft, E., Lemaignan, S., & Belpaeme, T. (2016). From characterising three years of HRI to methodology and reporting recommendations. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 391–398). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beer, J. M., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T. L., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Understanding robot acceptance (Report No. HFA-TR-1103). Retrieved from Georgia Institute of Technology website: [URL]
Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., Greeff, J. De, Kennedy, J., Read, R., Looije, R., … Zelati, M. C. (2013). Child-robot interaction: Perspectives and challenges. In G. Herrmann, M. J. Pearson, A. Lenz, P. Bremner, A. Spiers, & U. Leonards (Eds.), International Conference on Social Robotics: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 452–459). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beran, T. N., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Kuzyk, R., Fior, M., & Nugent, S. (2011). Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child-robot interaction. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 69(7–8), 539–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanson Henkemans, O. A., Bierman, B. P. B., Janssen, J., Looije, R., Neerincx, M. A., van Dooren, M. M. M., … Huisman, S. D. (2017). Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 1. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 1061, 63–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breazeal, C., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., & Kory, J. M. (2016). Young children treat robots as informants. Topics in Cognitive Science, 81, 481–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, E. (2017). Interactions with robots: The truths we reveal about ourselves. Annual Review of Psychology, 681, 627–652. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budgen, D., & Brereton, P. (2006). Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 1051–1052). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burleson, B. R. (2010). The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The Handbook of Communication Science (2nd ed., pp. 145–164). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 141, 365–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D., Fernando, S., Collins, E., Millings, A., Moore, R. K., Sharkey, A., … Prescott, T. (2015). Presence of life-like robot expressions influences children’s enjoyment of human-robot interactions in the field. In M. Salem, A. Weiss, P. Baxter, & K. Dautenhahn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction (Vol. 21, pp. 36–41). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, D. B., & Levy, G. D. (1988). Cognitive aspects of early sex-role development: The influence of gender schemas on preschoolers’ memories and preferences for sex-typed toys and activities. Child Development, 59(3), 782–792. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cherney, I. D., & London, K. (2006). Gender-linked differences in the toys, television shows, computer games, and outdoor activities of 5- to 13-year-old children. Sex Roles, 54(9–10), 717–726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cole, M., Cole, S. R., & Lightfoot, C. (2005). The development of children (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for emperically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Perceived usefulness, rerceived ease of use, and user acceptance of social robots. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Graaf, M. M. A., & Ben Allouch, S. (2013). Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(12), 1476–1486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Graaf, M. M. A., Ben Allouch, S., & Klamer, T. (2015). Sharing a life with Harvey: Exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Computers in Human Behavior, 431, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Graaf, M. M. A., Ben Allouch, S., & Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2016). Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes. Interaction Studies, 17(3), 461–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). A phased framework for long-term user acceptance of interactive technology in domestic environments. New Media & Society, 146144481772726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Why do they refuse to use my robot?: Reasons for non-use derived from a long-term home study. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 224–233). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Why would I use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human-Computer Interaction, 34(2), 115–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Haas, M., Mois Arayo, A., Barakova, E., Haselager, W., & Smeekens, I. (2016). The effect of a semi-autonomous robot on children. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Systems (pp. 376–381). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz, M., Nuño, N., Saez-Pons, J., Pardo, D. E., & Angulo, C. (2011). Building up child-robot relationship for therapeutic purposes: From initial attraction towards long-term social engagement. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition and Workshops (Vol. 271, pp. 927–932). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinet, J., & Vivian, R. (2014). Exploratory investigation of attitudes towards assistive robots for future users. Le Travail Humain, 77(2), 105–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eyssel, F. (2017). An experimental psychological perspective on social robotics. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 871, 363–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Bobinger, S., De Ruiter, L., & Hegel, F. (2012). “If you sound like me, you must be more human.” In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 125–126). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ezer, N. (2008). Is a robot an appliance, teammate, or friend? Age-related differences in expectations of and attitudes towards personal home-based robots (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from [URL]
Fernaeus, Y., Håkansson, M., Jacobsson, M., & Ljungblad, S. (2010). How do you play with a robot toy animal? In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 39–48). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Baena, A., Boldú, R., Albo-Canals, J., & Miralles, D. (2015). Interaction between Vleo and Pleo, a virtual social character and a social robot. In Proceedings of the 24th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 694–699). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferraz, M., Câmara, A., & O’Neill, A. (2016). Increasing children’s physical activity levels through biosymtic robotic devices. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (no. 2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gomes, P. F., Sardinha, A., Segura, E. M., Cramer, H., & Paiva, A. (2014). Migration between two embodiments of an artificial pet. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 11(1), 1450001. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guneysu, A., & Arnrich, B. (2017). Socially assistive child-robot interaction in physical exercise coaching. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 670–675). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, T., Kato, N., & Kobayashi, H. (2011). Development of educational system with the android robot SAYA and evaluation. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 8(3), 51–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heerink, M. (2011). Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 147–148). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heerink, M., Kröse, B. J. A., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. J. (2008). The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents, 2(2), 33–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. London, UK: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
International Federation of Robotics. (2017). Executive Summary WR Service Robots. Retrieved from [URL]
Kahn, P. H., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., & Gill, B. T. (2012). “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahn, P. H., Gary, H. E., & Shen, S. (2013). Children’s social relationships with current and near-future robots. Child Development Perspectives, 7(1), 32–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 61–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kanda, T., Shimada, M., & Koizumi, S. (2012). Children learning with a social robot. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 351–358). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kȩdzierski, J., Muszyński, R., Zoll, C., Oleksy, A., & Frontkiewicz, M. (2013). EMYS-Emotive head of a social robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(2), 237–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews (Technical report Keele University TR/SE-0401 and NICTA 0400011T.1). Retrieved from: [URL]
Koay, K. L., Syrdal, D. S., Walters, M. L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Living with robots: Investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human-robot interaction study. In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 564–569). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kose-Bagci, H., Ferrari, E., Dautenhahn, K., Syrdal, D. S., & Nehaniv, C. L. (2009). Effects of embodiment and gestures on social interaction in drumming games with a humanoid robot. Advanced Robotics, 23(14), 1951–1996. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kriz, S., Ferro, T. D., Damera, P., & Porter, J. R. (2010). Fictional robots as a data source in HRI research: Exploring the link between science fiction and interactional expectations. In Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 458–463). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Oleari, E., Baroni, I., Kiefer, B., Zelati, M. C., Pozzi, C., & Sanna, A. (2014). Effects of off-activity talk in human-robot interaction with diabetic children. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 649–654). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, K. M., Jung, Y., Kim, J., & Kim, S. R. (2006). Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human-robot interaction. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(10), 962–973. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leite, I., & Lehman, J. F. (2016). The robot who knew too much: Toward understanding the privacy/personalization trade-off in child-robot conversation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 379–387). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Looije, R., Neerincx, M. A., & Hindriks, K. V. (2017). Specifying and testing the design rationale of social robots for behavior change in children. Cognitive Systems Research, 431, 250–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mavridis, N. (2015). A review of verbal and non-verbal human-robot interactive communication. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 631, 22–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, J. E., & Mutlu, B. (2017). Someone to read with: Design of and experiences with an in-home learning companion robot for reading. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 301–312). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. L. (1987). Qualitative differences among gender-stereotyped toys: Implications for cognitive and social development in girls and boys. Sex Roles, 16(9–10), 473–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minato, T., Shimada, M., Ishiguro, H., & Itakura, S. (2004). Development of an Android Robot for Studying Human-Robot Interaction. In B. Orchard, C. Yang, & M. Ali (Eds.), Innovations in Applied Artificial Intelligence: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 424–434). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., … Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nalin, M., Baroni, I., Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Canamero, L., Lewis, M., Beck, A., … Sanna, A. (2012). Children’s adaptation in multi-session interaction with a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the 21st International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 351–357). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peter, J., Kühne, R., Barco, A., De Jong, C., & Van Straten, C. L. (2019). Asking today the crucial questions of tomorrow: Social robots and the Internet of Toys. In G. Mascheroni & D. Holloway (Eds.), The Internet of Toys. Practices, Affordances and the Political Economy of Children’s Smart Play (pp. 25–46). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (2008). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pulido, J. C., González, J. C., Suárez-Mejías, C., Bandera, A., Bustos, P., & Fernández, F. (2017). Evaluating the child–robot interaction of the NAOTherapist platform in pediatric rehabilitation. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(3), 343–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ribi, F. N., Yokoyama, A., & Turner, D. C. (2008). Comparison of children’s behavior toward Sony’s robotic dog AIBO and a real dog. A pilot study. Anthrozoös, 21(3), 245–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ros, R., Oleari, E., Pozzi, C., Sacchitelli, F., Baranzini, D., Bagherzadhalimi, A., … Demiris, Y. (2016). A motivational approach to support healthy habits in long-term child–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(5), 599–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabelli, A. M., & Kanda, T. (2016). Robovie as a mascot: A qualitative study for long-term presence of robots in a shopping mall. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 211–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saint-Aimé, S., Grandgeorge, M., Le Pévédic, B., & Duhaut, D. (2011). Evaluation of EmI interaction with non-disabled children in nursery school using the wizard of Oz technique. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Biometrics (pp. 1147–1152). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saint-Aimé, S., Le Pévédic, B., & Duhaut, D. (2011). Preliminary study to evaluate Emi emotional interaction with two young children. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (pp. 1309–1314). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandygulova, A., & O’Hare, G. M. P. (2016). Investigating the impact of gender segregation within observational pretend play interaction. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 399–406). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serholt, S., Basedow, C. A., Barendregt, W., & Obaid, M. (2014). Comparing a humanoid tutor to a human tutor delivering an instructional task to children. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (pp. 1134–1141). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibata, T., Wada, K., Ikeda, Y., & Sabanovic, S. (2009). Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Advanced Robotics, 23(4), 443–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, D.-H., & Choo, H. (2011). Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics: Social presence in human–robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 12(3), 430–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shiomi, M., Abe, K., Pei, Y., Ikeda, N., & Nagai, T. (2016). “I’m scared”: Little children reject robots. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (pp. 245–247). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simmons, R., & Knight, H. (2017). Keep on dancing: Effects of expressive motion mimicry. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 720–727). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, B. (2001). Wissenmedien im Bildungssektor. Eine Akzeptanzuntersuchung an Hochschulen (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from [URL]
Sun, Y., & Jeyaraj, A. (2013). Information technology adoption and continuance: A longitudinal study of individuals’ behavioral intentions. Information and Management, 50(7), 457–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sundar, S. S., Waddell, T. F., & Jung, E. H. (2016). The Hollywood robot syndrome: Media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. In International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 343–350). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sung, J. Y., Christensen, H. I., & Grinter, R. E. (2009). Robots in the wild: Understanding long-term use. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 45–52). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 656–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tozadore, D. C., Pinto, A. H. M., Ranieri, C. M., Batista, M. R., & Romero, R. A. F. (2017). Tablets and humanoid robots as engaging platforms for teaching languages. In Proceedings of the Latin American Robotics Symposium (pp. 1–6). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tozadore, D., Pinto, A., Romero, R., & Trovato, G. (2017). Wizard of Oz vs autonomous: Children’s perception changes according to robot’s operation condition. In Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 664–669). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged in: How media attract and affect youth. Journal of Children and Media. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Straten, C. L., Peter, J., & Kühne, R. (2019). Child-robot relationship formation: A narrative review of empirical research. International Journal of Social Robotics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wainer, J., Feil-Seifer, D. J., Shell, D. A., & Mataric, M. J. (2006). The role of physical embodiment in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 117–122). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walters, M. L., Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., & Koay, K. L. (2008). Avoiding the uncanny valley: Robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Autonomous Robots, 24(2), 159–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weibel, D., Stricker, D., Wissmath, B., & Mast, F. W. (2010). How socially relevant visual characteristics of avatars influence impression formation. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(1), 37–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westlund, J. M. K., Martinez, M., Archie, M., Das, M., & Breazeal, C. (2016). Effects of framing a robot as a social agent or as a machine on children’s social behavior. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 688–693). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wigdor, N., De Greeff, J., Looije, R., & Neerincx, M. A. (2016). How to improve human-robot interaction with conversational fillers. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 219–224). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiles, J., Worthy, P., Hensby, K., Boden, M., Heath, S., Pounds, P., … Weigel, J. (2016). Social cardboard: Pretotyping a social ethnodroid in the wild. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 531–532). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woods, S., Dautenhahn, K., & Schulz, J. (2004). The design space of robots: Investigating children’s views. In Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 47–52). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Pan, Xin-Yun, Xuan-Yi Bi, Yan-Ning Nong, Xu-Chun Ye, Yan Yan, Jing Shang, Yi-Min Zhou & Yu-Zhe Yao
2024. The efficacy of socially assistive robots in improving children’s pain and negative affectivity during needle-based invasive treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pediatrics 24:1 DOI logo
Cocchella, Francesca, Giulia Pusceddu, Giulia Belgiovine, Michela Bogliolo, Linda Lastrico, Maura Casadio, Francesco Rea & Alessandra Sciutti
2023. 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 1413 ff. DOI logo
Kiuchi, Keita, Kouyou Otsu & Yugo Hayashi
2023. Psychological insights into the research and practice of embodied conversational agents, chatbots and social assistive robots: a systematic meta-review. Behaviour & Information Technology ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kühne, Rinaldo & Jochen Peter
2023. Anthropomorphism in human–robot interactions: a multidimensional conceptualization. Communication Theory 33:1 ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo
Rodríguez-Hidalgo, Carmina & Nairbis Sibrian
2023. Using a Social Robot to Aid Online Learning: Identifying Teachers’ Media and Digital Competencies, Barriers and Opportunities. In Communication and Applied Technologies [Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 318], ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Jianmin, Yongkang Chen, Siguang Huo, Liya Mai & Fusheng Jia
2023. Research Hotspots and Trends of Social Robot Interaction Design: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sensors 23:23 ► pp. 9369 ff. DOI logo
Alhmiedat, Tareq & Mohammed Alotaibi
2022. Design and Evaluation of a Personal Robot Playing a Self-Management for Children with Obesity. Electronics 11:23 ► pp. 4000 ff. DOI logo
de Jong, Chiara, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne & Alex Barco
2022. Children’s Intention to Adopt Social Robots: A Model of its Distal and Proximal Predictors. International Journal of Social Robotics 14:4 ► pp. 875 ff. DOI logo
De Jong, Chiara, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne & Alex Barco
2024. Children's Acceptance of a Domestic Social Robot: How It Evolves over Time. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 13:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gao, Jing & Chi Lin
2022. Artificial Intelligence Application in the Design of Children's Service Robot Based on Context Perception. Mobile Information Systems 2022 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ríos Rincón, Adriana Maria, William Ricardo Rodríguez-Dueñas, Daniel Alejandro Quiroga Torres, Andrés Felipe Bohórquez & Antonio Miguel-Cruz
2022. Children’s Imaginaries of Robots for Playing With. International Journal of Social Robotics 14:2 ► pp. 463 ff. DOI logo
Zhao, Zhao & Rhonda McEwen
2022. 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
de Jong, Chiara, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kuhne, Caroline van Straten & Alex Barco
2021. 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), ► pp. 598 ff. DOI logo
Kitt, Elizabeth R., Molly K. Crossman, Angela Matijczak, Gillian B. Burns & Alan E. Kazdin
2021. Evaluating the Role of a Socially Assistive Robot in Children’s Mental Health Care. Journal of Child and Family Studies 30:7 ► pp. 1722 ff. DOI logo
Neerincx, Anouk, Thirza Hiwat & Maartje de Graaf
2021. Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, ► pp. 120 ff. DOI logo
Barco, Alex, Chiara de Jong, Jochen Peter, Rinaldo Kühne & Caroline L. van Straten
2020. Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
de Jong, Chiara, Rinaldo Kühne, Jochen Peter, Caroline L. van Straten & Alex Barco
2020. Intentional acceptance of social robots: Development and validation of a self-report measure for children. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 139 ► pp. 102426 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.