Representations of Childcare Robots as a Controversial Issue

Authors: Raya A. Jones

Abstract:

This paper interrogates online representations of robot companions for children, including promotional material by manufacturers, media articles and technology blogs. The significance of the study lies in its contribution to understanding attitudes to robots. The prospect of childcare robots is particularly controversial ethically, and is associated with emotive arguments. The sampled material is restricted to relatively recent posts (the past three years) though the analysis identifies both continuous and changing themes across the past decade. The method extrapolates social representations theory towards examining the ways in which information about robotic products is provided for the general public. Implications for social acceptance of robot companions for the home and robot ethics are considered.

Keywords: Acceptance of robots, childcare robots, ethics, social representations.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1131563

References:

[1] European Commission, “Special Eurobarometer 382: Public attitudes towards robots”, 2012. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_382_en.pdf (accessed March 3, 2017).
[2] eMarketer, “In survey across EMEA, Britons most skeptical of robots, AI for healthcare”, April 18, 2017. Available at: https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Survey-Across-EMEA-Britons-Most-Skeptical-of-Robots-AI-Healthcare/1015681 (accessed April 19, 2017).
[3] K. F. MacDorman, S. K. Vasudevan and C-C. Ho, “Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and exfplicit measures.” AI & Society, vol. 23, pp. 485–510, 2009.
[4] J. R. Movellan, “Warning: The author of this document may have no mental states. Read at your own risk.” Interaction Studies vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 238–245, 2010.
[5] N. Sharkey and A. Sharkey, “The crying shame of robot nannies: An ethical appraisal.” Interaction Studies vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 161–190, 2010
[6] R. A. Jones, Personhood and social robotics. London, Routledge, 2016. Ch. 6.
[7] S. Moscovici, “The phenomenon of social representations.” In Social Representations, R. Farr R. and S. Moscovici S., Eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, pp. 3–70.
[8] B. Höijer, “Social representations theory: a new theory for media research,” Nordicom Review, vol.32, issue 2, pp. 3-16, 2011.
[9] M. Verkuyten, M., “Symbols and social representations.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior Vol. 25, issue 3, pp. 263–284, 1995.
[10] M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell, “Towards a paradigm for research on social representations.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, vol. 29, issue 2, pp. 163–186, 1999.
[11] AvatarMind, “iPal™ is with you all the time”. Available at: www.avatarmind.com/products.action (accessed April 23, 2017).
[12] AvatarMind, “The social robot iPal,” Available at: www.ipalrobot.com/ (accessed April 23, 2017).
[13] T. Breathnach, “Would you let this robot babysit your child?” Available at: www.madeformums.com/news-and-gossip/would-you-let-this-robot-babysit-your-child/41932.html (accessed April 23, 2017).
[14] Shadow Robot Company, “The iPal – a help or hindrance to child development?” Available at: www.shadowrobot.com/the-ipal-a-help-or-hindrance-to-child-development/ (accessed April 23, 2017).
[15] S. Liberatore, “Would you let a robot look after YOUR child?” Available at: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3814207/Would-let-robot-look-child-Meet-iPal-controversial-child-sized-machine-inventors-claim-used-babysitter.html#ixzz4ezb8zUAw (accessed April 23, 2017).
[16] J. C. Wong, “‘This is awful’: robot can keep children occupied for hours without supervision.” Available at: www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/29/ipal-robot-childcare-robobusiness-san-jose (accessed April 23, 2017).
[17] R. Baart, “This robot takes care of your children,” available at: https://www.nextnature.net/2016/10/robot-nanny-adult-responsibilities/ (accessed April 24, 2017).
[18] R. Bishop, “Robotics makes baby steps toward solving Japan’s child care shortage,” available at: www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/04/01/national/social-issues/robotics-makes-baby-steps-toward-solving-japans-child-care-shortage/ (accessed April 23, 2017).
[19] R. Chant, “Robot nannies: should gadgets raise your kids?” Available at: http://theinstitute.ieee.org/ieee-roundup/blogs/blog/robot-nannies-should-gadgets-raise-your-kids (accessed April 23, 2017).
[20] M. Yao, “Could your child’s best friend be a robot?” Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariyayao/2017/04/06/could-your-childs-best-friend-be-a-robot/#5c20b5a86dbb (accessed April 24, 2017).
[21] J. Bennington-Castro, “Let robots teach our kids? Here’s why that isn’t such a bad idea,” Available at: http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/technology/robots-will-soon-become-our-children-s-tutors-here-s-n748196 (accessed April 24, 2017).
[22] Responsible Robotics, “Amanda Sharkey on KABC LA (childcare robots)” Available at: http://responsiblerobotics.org/2016/10/06/amanda-sharkey-on-kabc-la-childcare-robots (accessed April 24, 2017).
[23] C. Zoll and C. Spielhagen, C. “Changing perspective: From avoiding harm to child’s best interests.” Interaction Studies vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 295–301, 2010.
[24] G. F. Melson, “Child development robots: Social forces, children’s perspectives” Interaction Studies vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 227–232, 2010.