IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2016 - 55

Since our belief is that children with ASD, as endusers of social robots, should play an active role in
the process of designing social robots, in a previous
study we investigated the impact of the physical
design of social robots on the perceptions and preferences of children, both typical developing (TD) and
children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) [24]. A
high diversity of preferences for different robots was
revealed, but also a high preference for simplified
designs, with exaggerated facial features. This study
provided an innovative instrument for studying children's perception about social robots that should be
used in future studies investigating robotic designs
for children.

Efficacy and Effectiveness Research
Efficacy and effectiveness research on the use of robots
in ASD therapy is still in its infancy [10], but some
research data indicate increased engagement,
increased levels of attention (see Feil-Seifer and Mataric´,
Kozima et al., Kim et al., Stanton et al., Pioggia et al.,
and Robins et al. cited in [25], [28], [36]), and novel
social behaviors such as joint attention, spontaneous
imitation and turn-taking when robots are part of the
interaction (see Diehl et al., Ricks and Colton, Scassellati, Kozima et al., Ferrari et al.,Feil-Seifer and Mataric´,
and Kozima et al. cited in [28], [35]). While some of
these behaviors may be attributed to the novelty of the
robot, other behaviors, such as triadic interaction, turntaking with another child, cooperation with peers (Robins et al., Feil-Seifer and Mataric, François et al., and
Wainer et al. cited in [28]) suggest that robots may function, for children with ASD, as facilitators of the interaction with another person, bringing structure in the
interaction and lowering the confusion and distress
level. Although RET has shown some success, there is
little data about the conditions necessary for the generalization of the acquired skills in interaction with human
partners, or about the parameters of these facilitative
interactions [28]. Therefore, until rigorous clinical trials
are conducted and replicated, the clinical use of robots
for ASD should be considered an experimental
approach [10].
The development of the SAR domain seems promising, but also raises many questions regarding the ethical implications of using social robots. As a recent
Eurobarometer study of public attitudes towards
robots shows [12], 66% of the respondents declared
they are totally uncomfortable about the idea of having their children or elderly parents cared for by a
robot. Only 4% of the EU sample considered that
using robots for care of children, elderly, and the disabled is a priority. Sixty percent of EU citizens declare
that robots should be banned in the care of children,
june 2016

∕

the elderly, and people with disabilities. Portugal
(35%), Bulgaria (40%), and Malta (49%) are the only
countries where this view is not held by the majority of
the sample population. There is also still considerable
general opposition to using robots in other ''human''
areas: 34% of respondents say robots should be
banned in education. The percentage is highest in
Luxembourg (58%), France (56%), Belgium (51%), and
the Netherlands (50%), where the majority of EU citizens believe that robots should be banned in the education area. This view is least widely expressed in
Finland (14%), Slovenia (17%), and Slovakia (19%) [12].
A possible explanation for the rejection of robots in
education and in the care of vulnerable populations is
that people fear the fact that robots might function as
an isolating factor [30], [34] for people that already suffer from isolation, such as elderly people or children
with ASD.

The goal is to use robots as a
means to affect the social and
communicative behavior of children
with autism.

Contrary to this view, Shibata et al. [32] have found
that the use of a social robot, Paro, with children
increases the amount of communication with each
other and with caretakers, when used as mediators in
triadic interaction.
Another possible explanation may be related to a
low level of human trust in robotic systems, which
becomes manifest when robots are used outside controlled environments and reaches the highest values
when it comes to the issue of taking care of the most
vulnerable populations. But what is this trust concept
referring to? Hancock, Billings, Schaefer et al. [17] performed a meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in
human-like interaction. Factors related to robots were
parsed into two subcategories: robot performancebased factors (e.g., reliability, false alarm rate, failure
rate) and attribute-based factors (e.g., proximity, robot
personality, and anthropomorphism). The results suggested that performance factors were more strongly
associated with trust development and maintenance.
This effect might be due to the fact that robots are still
perceived more as tools [12] and less as intentional
agents, capable of independent decision making and

IEEE TEchnology and SocIETy MagazInE

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2016