Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 123–137 | Cite as

The Intervention of Robot Caregivers and the Cultivation of Children’s Capability to Play



In this article, the authors examine whether and how robot caregivers can contribute to the welfare of children with various cognitive and physical impairments by expanding recreational opportunities for these children. The capabilities approach is used as a basis for informing the relevant discussion. Though important in its own right, having the opportunity to play is essential to the development of other capabilities central to human flourishing. Drawing from empirical studies, the authors show that the use of various types of robots has already helped some children with impairments. Recognizing the potential ethical pitfalls of robot caregiver intervention, however, the authors examine these concerns and conclude that an appropriately designed robot caregiver has the potential to contribute positively to the development of the capability to play while also enhancing the ability of human caregivers to understand and interact with care recipients.


Robot ethics Robot caregivers The capability to play Disability Capabilities approach 


  1. Banks, M. R., Willoughby, L. M., & Banks, W. A. (2008). Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: Use of robotic versus living dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 9(3), 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekoff, M., & Pierce, J. (2010). Wild justice: The moral lives of animals. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Borenstein, J., & Pearson, Y. (2010). Robot caregivers: Harbingers of expanded freedom for all? Ethics and Information Technology, 12(3), 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coeckelbergh, M. (2010). Health care, capabilities, and AI assistive technologies. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 13(2), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coeckelbergh, M. (2011). You, robot: On the linguistic construction of artificial others. AI and Society, 26(1), 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duncan, A. F., & Caughy, M. O. (2009). Parenting style and the vulnerable child syndrome. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 22(4), 228–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Faucounau, V., Wu, Y. H., Boulay, M., Maestrutti, M., & Rigaud, A. S. (2009). Caregivers’ requirements for in-home robotic agent for supporting community-living elderly subjects with cognitive impairment. Technology and Health Care, 17(1), 33–40.Google Scholar
  8. Ginsburg, K. R., & The Committee on Communications, the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child, Family Health. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heimlich, K. (2001). Animal-assisted therapy and the severely disabled child: A quantitative study, Journal of Rehabilitation. Accessed 19 May 2011.
  10. Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kahn, P. H., Jr., Friedman, B., Perez-Granados, D., & Freier, N. G. (2006). Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 405–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, D., Hazlett, R., Godfrey, H., Rucks, G., Portee, D., & Bricout, J., et al. (2010). On the relationship between autonomy, performance, and satisfaction: Lessons from a three-week user study with post-SCI patients using a smart 6DOF assistive robotic manipulator. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 217–222.Google Scholar
  13. Li, H. C. W., Chung, Oi. K. J., & Chiu, S. Y. (2010). The impact of cancer on children’s physical, emotional, and psychosocial well-being. Cancer Nursing, 33(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mone, G. (2010). The new face of therapy, Popular Science (June), 68–93.Google Scholar
  15. Murphy, N. A., Christian, B., Caplin, D. A., & Young, P. C. (2006). The health of caregivers for children with disabilities: Caregiver perspectives. Child: Care, Health and Development, 33(2), 180–187.Google Scholar
  16. Narvaez, D. (2008). Human flourishing and moral development: Cognitive science and neurobiological perspectives on virtue development. In L. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook of Moral and Character Education (pp. 310–327). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and Human Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  19. Poletz, L., Encarnação, P., Adams, K., & Cook, A. (2010). Robot skills and cognitive performance of preschool children. Technology and Disability, 22(3), 117–126.Google Scholar
  20. Prazak, B., Kronreif, G., Hochgatterer, A., & Furst, M. (2004). A toy robot for physically disabled children. Technology and Disability, 16(3), 131–136.Google Scholar
  21. Scassellati, B. (2007). How social robots will help us to diagnose, treat, and understand autism. In S. Thrun, R. Brooks, & H. Durrant-Whyte (Eds.), Robotics Research (pp. 552–563). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  23. Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2010a). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, doi: 10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6.
  24. Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2010b). The crying shame of robot nannies: An ethical appraisal. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines, 16(2), 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spiegel, A. (2008). Old-fashioned play builds serious skills, NPR Morning Edition (February 21). Accessed 19 May 2011.
  27. Stiegler, L., & Davis, R. (2011). Managing sound sensitivity in individuals with ASDs. The ASHA Leader. Accessed 19 May 2011.
  28. Toboso, M. (2011). Rethinking disability in Amartya Sen’s approach: ICT and equality of opportunity. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(2), 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Vallor, S. (2011). Carebots and caregivers: Sustaining the ethical ideal of care in the twenty-first century. Philosophy & Technology (Online First). Accessed 22 July 2011.
  31. Wright, R. J., Cohen, S., Carey, V., Weiss, S. T., & Gold, D. R. (2002). Parental stress as a predictor of wheezing in infancy: A prospective birth-cohort study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 165(3), 358–365.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Religious StudiesInstitute for Ethics and Public Affairs, Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Research Ethics ProgramsGeorgia Tech School of Public PolicyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations