HRI Value Compass
The HRI Value Compass is the result of a joint study by Ghent University (Belgium) and Politecnico di Milano (Italy): Concerns and Values in Human-Robot Interactions: A Focus on Social Robotics. It consists of a set of topics and a web tool. The topics are ethical concerns and values that arise in human-robot interactions, extracted from a scoping review of HRI literature, and validated through focus group discussions with technology ethics experts. The web tool helps researchers identify which of these values are relevant in their research context, and provides useful links to the literature for reference. If you use the tool or the insights in your research, please cite the publication.
Abbo, G.A., Belpaeme, T. & Spitale, M. Concerns and Values in Human-Robot Interactions: A Focus on Social Robotics. Int J of Soc Robotics 18, 4 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-025-01351-1How to use the HRI Value Compass tool
The HRI Value Compass guides the user through a three steps process. In the first step, the user is invited to reflect on the context in which the robot will be used. In the second step, the user is guided through a series of questions that help identify the values that are relevant in that context. In the third step, the interface displays provides an overview of the values that were identified, useful for further reflection and discussion.
The tool is built on the results of a scoping review and a focus group with technology ethics experts. The results of this study are available by clicking names of each topic in the navigation menu or in the tool, providing useful links to the literature for further reading. You can also explore the topics and references in a table format.
A paper version of the tool is available on Zenodo.
Concerns and Values
| Value | Topic - Positive | Topic - Negative | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| agency | independence | The robot reduces the user's physical dependence on other humans; the user is independent in using the robot. | |
| agency | dependence | The user can develop a physical dependence on the robot. | |
| agency | control | The robot does not physically constrain or force the user. | |
| connectedness | companionship | The robot can provide companionship. | |
| connectedness | social enabler | The robot can facilitate connections between humans. | |
| connectedness | social substitute | The robot can reduce social interactions. | |
| privacy | access | The users, or people selected by them, can have access to the data collected by the robot. | |
| privacy | consent | The robot invades bystanders' privacy. | |
| privacy | intimacy | The robot's constant presence invades private spaces, causing discomfort and a panopticon effect. | |
| privacy | profiling | The robot collects data continuously or aggressively; data safety and protection. | |
| privacy | transparency | The robot's functionalities and monitoring capabilities are clearly stated. | |
| autonomy | attachment | The user can develop an emotional dependency on the robot, reducing the autonomy. | |
| autonomy | manipulation | The robot can influence the user with persuasion and nudging. | |
| equity | fairness | The robot treats everyone fairly according to their needs. | |
| equity | bias | Some users do not feel part of the intended audience (algorithmic bias). | |
| equity | exclusion | The robot is not personalised to the user demographic: preferences, habits, economic background... | |
| equity | accountability | The person responsible for the robot's actions is fairly accountable. | |
| dignity | tricking | The robot should not lie or trick the users into anthropomorphising its behaviour. | |
| dignity | degradation | The users might perceive interacting with a robot instead of a human as humiliating. | |
| dignity | identity disclosure | The robot's artificial nature is clearly stated. | |
| virtue | mentor | The robot can set a good example and foster virtuous interactions. | |
| virtue | corruptor | The users can exercise unkind behaviour towards the robot, with negative effects on subsequent human interactions. | |
| welfare | education | The robot can teach topics, thought processes, and routines. | |
| welfare | nonjudgmental | The user can be sincere with the robot, as it has no sentiments. | |
| welfare | safety | The robot is safe and it does not harm the users. | |
| welfare | wellbeing | The robot allows disclosure and can give advice. |
“Concerns and Values in Human-Robot Interactions: A Focus on Social Robotics” – Abstract
Robots, as AI with physical instantiation, inhabit our social and physical world, where their actions have both social and physical consequences, posing challenges for researchers when designing social robots. This study starts with a scoping review to identify discussions and potential concerns arising from interactions with robotic systems in the context of healthcare, education, and private homes. Two focus groups of technology ethics experts then validated a comprehensive list of key topics and values in human-robot interaction (HRI) literature in these contexts. These insights were integrated into the HRI Value Compass web tool, to help HRI researchers identify these values in robot design. The tool was evaluated in a pilot study. This work benefits the HRI community by highlighting key concerns in human-robot interactions and providing an instrument to help researchers design robots that align with human values, ensuring future robotic systems adhere to these values in social applications.