IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v63y2020ics0160791x20303262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The foundations of a policy for the use of social robots in care

Author

Listed:
  • Sætra, Henrik Skaug

Abstract

Should we deploy social robots in care settings? This question, asked from a policy standpoint, requires that we understand the potential benefits and downsides of deploying social robots in care situations. Potential benefits could include increased efficiency, increased welfare, physiological and psychological benefits, and experienced satisfaction. There are, however, important objections to the use of social robots in care. These include the possibility that relations with robots can potentially displace human contact, that these relations could be harmful, that robot care is undignified and disrespectful, and that social robots are deceptive. I propose a framework for evaluating all these arguments in terms of three aspects of care: structure, process, and outcome. I then highlight the main ethical considerations that have to be made in order to untangle the web of pros and cons of social robots in care as these pros and cons are related the trade-offs regarding quantity and quality of care, process and outcome, and objective and subjective outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Sætra, Henrik Skaug, 2020. "The foundations of a policy for the use of social robots in care," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:63:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x20303262
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101383
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X20303262
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101383?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Batayeh, Brian G. & Artzberger, Georgia H. & Williams, Logan D.A., 2018. "Socially responsible innovation in health care: Cycles of actualization," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 14-22.
    2. Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2015. "Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 88-106.
    3. Margaret L. Traeger & Sarah Strohkorb Sebo & Malte Jung & Brian Scassellati & Nicholas A. Christakis, 2020. "Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(12), pages 6370-6375, March.
    4. Toms, G. & Verity, F. & Orrell, A., 2019. "Social care technologies for older people: Evidence for instigating a broader and more inclusive dialogue," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    5. Preston, Christopher J. & Wickson, Fern, 2016. "Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 48-57.
    6. Coeckelbergh, Mark, 2018. "Technology and the good society: A polemical essay on social ontology, political principles, and responsibility for technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 4-9.
    7. Obayashi, Kazuko & Kodate, Naonori & Masuyama, Shigeru, 2020. "Can connected technologies improve sleep quality and safety of older adults and care-givers? An evaluation study of sleep monitors and communicative robots at a residential care home in Japan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Obayashi, Kazuko & Kodate, Naonori & Masuyama, Shigeru, 2020. "Can connected technologies improve sleep quality and safety of older adults and care-givers? An evaluation study of sleep monitors and communicative robots at a residential care home in Japan," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    2. Hirt, Léon F. & Sahakian, Marlyne & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2022. "What subnational imaginaries for solar PV? The case of the Swiss energy transition," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    3. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Kouchaki, Maryam & Kray, Laura J., 2018. "“I won't let you down:” Personal ethical lapses arising from women’s advocating for others," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 147-157.
    5. Cao, Qian & Li, Jianbiao & Niu, Xiaofei, 2022. "White lies in tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Kennedy, Jessica A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2018. "Building trust by tearing others down: When accusing others of unethical behavior engenders trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 111-128.
    7. Beate Friedrich, 2019. "Pathways of Conflict: Lessons from the Cultivation of MON810 in Germany in 2005–2008 for Emerging Conflicts over New Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    8. Moore, Alexander K. & Lewis, Joshua & Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2023. "Benevolent friends and high integrity leaders: How preferences for benevolence and integrity change across relationships," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    9. Matteo Ploner, 2022. "Lie for me: An experiment about delegation, efficiency, and morality," CEEL Working Papers 2202, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    10. Valerio Capraro, 2018. "Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 345-355, July.
    11. Cristina Bicchieri & Eugen Dimant, 2018. "It's Not A Lie If You Believe It. Lying and Belief Distortion Under Norm-Uncertainty," PPE Working Papers 0012, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    12. Hsu, Eric L. & Elliott, Anthony & Ishii, Yukari & Sawai, Atsushi & Katagiri, Masataka, 2020. "The development of aged care robots in Japan as a varied process," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    13. Boada, Júlia Pareto & Maestre, Begoña Román & Genís, Carme Torras, 2021. "The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: A critical literature review," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    14. de Neufville, Robert & Baum, Seth D., 2021. "Collective action on artificial intelligence: A primer and review," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    15. Mao, Caixia & Koide, Ryu & Brem, Alexander & Akenji, Lewis, 2020. "Technology foresight for social good: Social implications of technological innovation by 2050 from a Global Expert Survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    16. Evan Polman & Lyn M. Van Swol & Paul R. Hoban, 2020. "Harbingers of foul play: A field study of gain/loss frames and regulatory fit in the NFL," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 353-370, May.
    17. Liu, Xin Lucy & Lu, Jackson G. & Zhang, Hongyu & Cai, Yahua, 2021. "Helping the organization but hurting yourself: How employees’ unethical pro-organizational behavior predicts work-to-life conflict," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 88-100.
    18. Kang, Polly & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "Emotional Deception in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    19. Bitterly, T. Bradford & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2019. "The impression management benefits of humorous self-disclosures: How humor influences perceptions of veracity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 73-89.
    20. Snyder, Hannah & Witell, Lars & Gustafsson, Anders & McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., 2022. "Consumer lying behavior in service encounters," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 755-769.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:63:y:2020:i:c:s0160791x20303262. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.