Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

I don't Want You to Die: A Shared Responsibility Framework for Safeguarding Child-Robot Companionship

Fan Yang, Renkai Ma, Yaxin Hu, Michael Rodgers, Lingyao Li

TL;DR

This study investigates who bears responsibility when a child-robot companion like Moxie is shut down, using the shutdown as a case to examine ethical accountability. It employs a qualitative survey (N=72) with an inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses to reveal a multi-stakeholder shared-responsibility framework involving the robot company, developers, marketers, parents, and government, with attributions shaped by political ideology and parental status. The findings show polarization over continuing service, yet converge on the need for concrete design and policy safeguards, such as offline functionality, transparent communication about attachment, and governance mechanisms. These insights offer actionable guidance for designing resilient child-focused robots and for regulatory approaches that protect children's emotional well-being without stifling innovation.

Abstract

Social robots like Moxie are designed to form strong emotional bonds with children, but their abrupt discontinuation can cause significant struggles and distress to children. When these services end, the resulting harm raises complex questions of who bears responsibility when children's emotional bonds are broken. Using the Moxie shutdown as a case study through a qualitative survey of 72 U.S. participants, our findings show that the responsibility is viewed as a shared duty across the robot company, parents, developers, and government. However, these attributions varied by political ideology and parental status of whether they have children. Participants' perceptions of whether the robot service should continue are highly polarized; supporters propose technical, financial, and governmental pathways for continuity, while opponents cite business realities and risks of unhealthy emotional dependency. Ultimately, this research contributes an empirically grounded shared responsibility framework for safeguarding child-robot companionship by detailing how accountability is distributed and contested, informing concrete design and policy implications to mitigate the emotional harm of robot discontinuation.

I don't Want You to Die: A Shared Responsibility Framework for Safeguarding Child-Robot Companionship

TL;DR

This study investigates who bears responsibility when a child-robot companion like Moxie is shut down, using the shutdown as a case to examine ethical accountability. It employs a qualitative survey (N=72) with an inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses to reveal a multi-stakeholder shared-responsibility framework involving the robot company, developers, marketers, parents, and government, with attributions shaped by political ideology and parental status. The findings show polarization over continuing service, yet converge on the need for concrete design and policy safeguards, such as offline functionality, transparent communication about attachment, and governance mechanisms. These insights offer actionable guidance for designing resilient child-focused robots and for regulatory approaches that protect children's emotional well-being without stifling innovation.

Abstract

Social robots like Moxie are designed to form strong emotional bonds with children, but their abrupt discontinuation can cause significant struggles and distress to children. When these services end, the resulting harm raises complex questions of who bears responsibility when children's emotional bonds are broken. Using the Moxie shutdown as a case study through a qualitative survey of 72 U.S. participants, our findings show that the responsibility is viewed as a shared duty across the robot company, parents, developers, and government. However, these attributions varied by political ideology and parental status of whether they have children. Participants' perceptions of whether the robot service should continue are highly polarized; supporters propose technical, financial, and governmental pathways for continuity, while opponents cite business realities and risks of unhealthy emotional dependency. Ultimately, this research contributes an empirically grounded shared responsibility framework for safeguarding child-robot companionship by detailing how accountability is distributed and contested, informing concrete design and policy implications to mitigate the emotional harm of robot discontinuation.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 24 sections, 4 figures, 1 table.

Table of Contents

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. RELATED WORK
  3. Robotic Bereavement
  4. Mitigating Risks in Human-Robot Bonds
  5. Shared Responsibilities in Child-Robot Companionship
  6. METHODS
  7. Data Collection: Qualitative Survey and Participants
  8. Data Analysis
  9. RESULTS
  10. RQ1: Stakeholder Responsibility and Its Different Attributions
  11. A Shared Responsibility (RQ1a)
  12. Political Ideology Difference: Systemic Corporate Failure vs. Individual Parental Judgment (RQ1b)
  13. A Parental Status Difference: Hands-On Parenting vs. Critique on Foundational Decisions (RQ1b)
  14. RQ2: Pathways to Continuous Service of the Robot and the Reasons Against it
  15. Fulfilling Continuous Service Through Technical, Financial, and External Safeguards (RQ2a)
  16. ...and 9 more sections

Figures (4)

  • Figure 1: The Moxie companion robot in different interaction scenarios and showcasing its design.
  • Figure 2: Multi-stakeholder responsibility attribution ($N=72$) in a child's suffering given Moxie robot discontinuation.
  • Figure 3: Perception of continuous moxie service ($N=72$).
  • Figure 4: A shared responsibility framework for mitigating the emotional risks in child-robot companionship. This framework illustrates the distribution of responsibility among key stakeholders, including the Robot Company, Developers, Marketing, Parents, and Government.