Connectedness – Social Substitute
The robot can reduce social interactions.
Human-robot interaction can support social life in many ways, but it can also shift the balance of relationships in unintended directions. The concern of robots as social substitutes focuses on situations where interaction with a robot begins to replace, rather than support, meaningful human contact. This is particularly relevant in everyday contexts such as education, elder care, and companionship technologies, where robots are increasingly present in roles traditionally filled by people. From the perspective of connectedness, robots are often introduced with the intention of enhancing social life: they can provide companionship, support communication, or reduce isolation. However, there is a persistent concern that this support can turn into substitution. When a robot becomes the preferred interaction partner, or when it indirectly reduces the perceived need for human involvement, social ties may weaken. The underlying issue is not simply the presence of robots, but how their integration reshapes expectations and effort in human relationships.
This concern is repeatedly reflected in empirical and theoretical work. Some authors note that fears arise when children may confide primarily in robots, potentially weakening parent-child contact and creating a sense of emotional distance in families, leading to a "loss of contact". Others emphasize that even when robots simulate care, this remains insufficient for genuine social bonds, since "pretend reciprocity" cannot replace real relationships. In elder care contexts, there is concern that robot-assisted assistance could reduce human companionship, limiting opportunities for social interaction. Similar concerns appear in education, where children might prefer interacting with robots over peers, potentially affecting social development and attachment patterns. Across these examples, the recurring theme is not that robots are inherently harmful, but that their convenience and consistency may unintentionally displace the slower, more demanding work of human relationship-building.
Excerpts from the paper:
About the value "Connectedness"
This value covers the social aspects involved in human-robot interactions, especially in older adults. The focus groups participants suggested that this moral principle is linked to whether the robot is replacing a human role, enhancing connections, or enabling new activities. They emphasised that the robot should not replace humans, but support them.
About "Social Substitute"
On the negative side, while robots can enhance social connectedness, there is also a risk that their use might become a substitute for human interaction, as emerged during the scoping review. This could happen when a person begins to prefer the company of their robot over that of other people. The focus groups participants provided several examples of this. For instance, family members might feel less compelled to check on their elderly relatives, knowing that a robot is providing companionship. Similarly, teachers may not engage effectively with students or provide meaningful feedback if a robot takes over all teaching activities.