How Ethical Issues Raised by Human–Robot Interaction can Impact the Intention to use the Robot?
This academic study investigates how ethical issues in human-robot interaction influence users' intention to use service robots in frontline delivery contexts. Using structural equation modeling on 341 survey responses, the research evaluates six ethical dimensions: social cues, trust and safety, autonomy, responsibility, privacy and data protection, and labor replacement. The findings reveal that trust and safety, social cues, privacy protection, and responsibility significantly impact user intention, whereas autonomy and replacement concerns do not directly influence usage intention.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
This study should be read by researchers, engineers, and service delivery professionals seeking to understand how ethical considerations influence user acceptance of service robots.
What the document contains
The document covers an empirical user study examining how ethical dimensions such as trust, safety, social cues, autonomy, responsibility, privacy, and job replacement impact the adoption and intention to use service robots in frontline service delivery settings.
The text lacks binding regulatory rules, technical engineering specifications, or legal enforcement mechanisms, focusing purely on empirical behavioral research and survey analysis.
- Trust and safety is the most significant factor positively impacting a user's intention to use a service robot.
- The expectation for robots to display human-like social cues is the second most significant positive driver of usage intention.
- Privacy and data protection concerns negatively impact users' intention to use service robots.
- While people perceive human job replacement as a major ethical issue, it does not directly alter their individual intention to use service robots.
- Robot autonomy and human job replacement did not show a direct statistical effect on usage intention in the tested structural equation model.
· 1 Introduction · 2 Research Model and Hypotheses · 3 Methodology · 4 Results · 5 Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
4/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Therefore, companies using a service robot should pay attention to this point and clearly define, before the deployment of their robot, who is responsible for the robot’s actions
Section 5.1
screening score · 2026-10-24
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
2/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
Psychological risks are also predicted, such as problems of attachment, fears, or the confusion between artificial and real
Section 1
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
3/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
It is still unclear to which extent a robot should be kept under supervision, controlled, or act on its own. This study aims to consider this point.
Section 2
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
1/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
If companies do not respect this regulation, they can pay fines up to 4% of their total global turnover or EUR 20 million.
Section 1.2
screening score · 2026-10-24