, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 499–507 | Cite as

Nudging for good: robots and the ethical appropriateness of nurturing empathy and charitable behavior

  • Jason BorensteinEmail author
  • Ronald C. Arkin
Original Article


An under-examined aspect of human–robot interaction that warrants further exploration is whether robots should be permitted to influence a user’s behavior for that person’s own good. Yet an even more controversial practice could be on the horizon, which is allowing a robot to “nudge” a user’s behavior for the good of society. In this article, we examine the feasibility of creating companion robots that would seek to nurture a user’s empathy toward other human beings. As more and more computing devices subtly and overtly influence human behavior, it is important to draw attention to whether it would be ethically appropriate for roboticists to pursue this type of design pathway. Our primary focus is on whether a companion robot could encourage humans to perform charitable acts; this design possibility illustrates the range of socially just actions that a robot could potentially elicit from a user and what the associated ethical concerns may be.


Charity Companion robots Design ethics Empathy Nudges Robot ethics 


  1. ABC News (2007) Parents: cyber bullying led to teen’s suicide. Accessed 6 May 2016
  2. Alba A (2015) Mattel’s talking Hello Barbie doll raises concern over children’s privacy. New York Daily News. Accessed 19 May 2016
  3. Arkin R (2014a) Theory of mind models for robotic mediation of stigma in patient-caregiver relationships. In: 2014 conference of the international association for computing and philosophy (IACAP 2014). Thessaloniki, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  4. Arkin RC (2014b) Ameliorating patient-caregiver stigma in early-stage Parkinson’s Disease using robot co-mediators. In: Proceedings of the AISB 50 symposium on machine ethics in the context of medical and health care agents. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Arkin R, Fujita M, Takagi T, Hasegawa R (2003) An ethological and emotional basis for human–robot interaction. Robot Auton Syst 42:191–201CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Banks MR, Willoughby LM, Banks WA (2008) Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. J Am Med Dir Assoc 9(3):173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloom P (2015) The dark side of empathy. The Atlantic. Accessed 20 June 2016
  8. Bohannon J (2016) Government ‘nudges’ prove their worth. Science 352(6289):1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borenstein J, Arkin R (2016) Robotic nudges: the ethics of engineering a more socially just human being. Sci Eng Ethics 22(1):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks A, Arkin RC (2007) Behavioral overlays for non-verbal communication expression on a humanoid robot. Auton Robots 22(1):55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll N (2011) On some affective relations between audiences and the characters in popular fictions. In: Coplan A, Goldie P (eds) Empathy: philosophical and psychological perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 162–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang W-L, Sabanovic S (2015) Studying assistive robots in their organizational context: studies with PARO in a nursing home. In: HRI’15 extended abstracts proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction extended abstracts, pp 227–228Google Scholar
  13. Coplan A, Goldie P (eds) (2011) Empathy: philosophical and psychological perspectives. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dolby N (2014) The future of empathy: teaching the millennial generation. J Coll Charact 15(1):39–44MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Dreyfus H (2004) Nihilism on the information highway: anonymity versus commitment in the present age. In: Feenberg A, Barney D (eds) Community in the digital age: philosophy and practice. Rowman & Littlefield, Maryland, pp 69–81Google Scholar
  16. Endenburg N, van Lith HA (2011) The influence of animals on the development of children. Vet J 190(2):208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eyal N, Hoover R (2013) Hooked: how to build habit-forming products. Nir EyalGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferenbok J, Mann S, Michael K (2016) The changing ethics of mediated looking. IEEE Consum Electron Mag 5(2):94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fogg BJ (2003) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  20. Ham J, Midden C (2013) A persuasive robot to stimulate energy conservation: the influence of positive and negative social feedback and task similarity on energy consumption behavior. Int J Soc Robot 6(2):163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ham J, Spahn A (2015) Shall i show you some other shirts too? The psychology and ethics of persuasive robots. In: Trappl R (ed) A construction manual for robots’ ethical systems. Springer, Basel, pp 63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris T (2016) How technology hijacks people’s minds — from a magician and Google’s design ethicist. Accessed 12 June 2016
  23. Hausman DM, Welch B (2010) Debate: to nudge or not to nudge. J Polit Philos 18(1):123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hern A (2016) Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft sign EU hate speech code. The Guardian. Accessed 31 May 2016
  25. Hoffman G, Zuckerman O, Hirschberger G, Luria M, Shani Sherman T (2015). Design and evaluation of a peripheral robotic conversation companion. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  26. Hornyak T (2014) An AI milestone: chatbot passes turing test by posing as 13-year-old boy. PCWorld. Accessed 12 May 2016
  27. Konrath S, O’Brien E, Hsing C (2011) Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: a meta-analysis. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 15(2):180–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kosner AW (2014) Hooked: How to make habit-forming products, and when to stop flapping. Forbes. Accessed 12 June 2016
  29. Levy D (2007) Love and sex with robots. Harper PerennialGoogle Scholar
  30. Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (eds) (2014) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Masunaga S (2016) Here are some of the tweets that got Microsoft’s AI Tay in trouble. Los Angeles Times. Accessed 6 June 2016
  32. Mettler K (2016) Gen Con, major gaming convention, has more female than male speakers for the first time ever, making some gamers grumpy. The Washington Post. Accessed 18 May 2016
  33. Moshkina L (2011) An integrative framework of time-varying affective robotic behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  34. Moshkina L, Arkin RC (2005) Human perspective on affective robotic behavior: a longitudinal study. In: Proceedings of IROS-2005. Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  35. Nye DE (2004) Technological prediction: a Promethean problem. In: Sturken M, Thomas D, Ball-Rokeach SJ (eds) Technological visions: the hopes and fears that shape new technologies. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp 159–176Google Scholar
  36. Orwell G (1950) 1984. Penguin Publishing GroupGoogle Scholar
  37. Park S, Moshkina L, Arkin RC (2010) Mood as an affective component for robotic behavior with continuous adaptation via learning momentum. In: Proceedings of 10th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots (Humanoids 2010). Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
  38. Pettinati M, Arkin RC (2015) Towards a robot computational model to preserve dignity in stigmatizing patient–caregiver relationships. In: 2015 international conference on social robotics (ICSR 2015). Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  39. Prinz JJ (2011) Is empathy necessary for morality? In: Coplan A, Goldie P (eds) Empathy: philosophical and psychological perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Scasselati B, Admoni H, Mataric MJ (2012) Robots for use in autism research. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14:275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shim J, Arkin RC (2015) An intervening ethical governor for a robot mediator in patient-caregiver relationships. In: International conference on robot ethics (ICRE 2015). Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  43. Stephan A (2015) Empathy for artificial agents. Int J Soc Robot 7:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stueber K (2014) Empathy. In: Zalta EN (ed) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed 1 June 2016
  45. Swick K (2001) Nurturing decency through caring and serving during the early childhood years. Early Child Educ J 29(2):131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swick K (2005) Preventing violence through empathy development in families. Early Child Educ J 33(1):53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomas F, Johnston O (1981) The illusion of life: Disney animation. hyperionGoogle Scholar
  49. Turkle S (1995) Life on the screen: identity in the age of the internet. Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Turkle S (2005) Relational artifacts/children/elders: the complexities of cybercompanions. Cognitive Science Society, StresaGoogle Scholar
  51. Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Turkle S (2015) Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Vinik D (2015) Obama’s effort to ‘nudge’ America. Politico. Accessed 1 July 2016
  54. Wallach W, Allen C (2009) Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press Inc, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weigel M (2016) Flirting with humanity: the search for an artificial intelligence smart enough to love. New Republic. Accessed 19 May 2016
  56. Whitby B (2012) Do you want a robot lover? The ethics of caring technologies. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey GA (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 233–248Google Scholar
  57. White House (2015) Executive order—using behavioral science insights to better serve the American people. Accessed 1 July 2016
  58. Zinn W (1993) The empathic physician. Arch Intern Med 153(3):306–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zuckerman O, Hoffman G (2015) Empathy objects: Robotic devices as conversation companions. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, pp 593–598Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.College of ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations