Gender and Age Stereotypes in Robotics for Eldercare: Ethical Implications of Stakeholder Perspectives from Technology Development, Industry, and Nursing
This study examines how professional stakeholders from technology development, industry, and nursing perceive and evaluate the use of gender and age stereotypes in eldercare robotics. Based on 16 semi-structured interviews, the authors identify six distinct approaches to these stereotypes: negation, functionalistic relativization, explanation, neutralization, stereotyping, and queering. The paper discusses the ethical implications of these approaches concerning professional responsibility, autonomy, and discrimination in age tech.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
This paper is for researchers, technology developers, and healthcare professionals interested in the ethical dimensions of care robotics.
What the document contains
The document explores the qualitative perspectives of professional stakeholders on gender and age stereotypes in eldercare robots. It maps out six approaches used in industry, technology development, and nursing, and analyzes their ethical implications.
The text does not provide quantitative metrics, official regulatory frameworks, or enforceable policy standards for robotic design.
- Professional stakeholders adopt six distinct approaches when dealing with gender and age stereotypes in eldercare robotics: negation, functionalistic relativization, explanation, neutralization, stereotyping, and queering.
- While some stakeholders use stereotypes strategically to enhance user acceptance and comfort, this practice raises serious ethical concerns regarding user autonomy and the reinforcement of societal discrimination.
- Many developers and engineers exhibit a technological-mechanistic mindset that ignores the social and cultural dimensions of human-robot interaction.
- Neutralization strategies aiming to remove all social markers often fail because users inevitably project social categorizations onto humanoid robots.
- Interdisciplinary collaboration integrating ethics, social sciences, and engineering is essential for developing responsible and diversity-sensitive eldercare technologies.
· Abstract · Introduction · Social Categorizations and Stereotypes in (Care) Robotics: State of Research and Ethical Debate · Methodology · “Our Robot is Perceived as Very Female, for Whatever Reason” – Professional Stakeholder Perceptions of Social Categorizations and Stereotypes in Robotics for Eldercare · Towards a Responsible Approach to Social Aspects in Age Tech
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Fairness
2/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
With regard to justice, a central question is whether users have equal access to stereotypical and non-stereotypical robots and their respective benefits or disadvantages.
Social Categorizations and Stereotypes in (Care) Robotics: State of Research and Ethical Debate
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
2/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
In view of autonomy, one important question is whether users can make informed and voluntary decisions for or against the implementation of stereotypes.
Social Categorizations and Stereotypes in (Care) Robotics: State of Research and Ethical Debate
screening score · 2026-10-24