Human-Social Robot Interaction, Anthropomorphism and Ontological Boundary Problem in Education




Education, Social Robot, Human-Social Robot, Interaction, Anthropomorphism, Psychological, Ontological categories


Artificial intelligence and robotics technologies do not manufacture robots only for industrial use, but also for healthcare, marketing, tourism and accommodation industries where social interaction is prevalent. Service robots are social robots that interact directly with individuals and to fulfill the physical, cognitive, emotional and social needs of individuals. Recently, it was observed that the number of studies on the employment of social robots in education has increased. These studies reported positive findings on the employment of social robots in educational settings; however, they also indicated certain problems. One of these problems was the ontological boundary problem due to the anthropomorphic design of these robots. Certain studies on human-social robot interaction demonstrated that the human-machine distinction has blurred, humans started to attribute anthropogenic traits to these robots such as intention, emotion and purpose, while these studies categorized these robots as live or hybrid. Anthropomorphizing the robots and the ambiguity of their ontological category could lead to problems such as excessive attachment, social isolation, and violation of privacy, and perceptions of the individuals about their existence could be altered. The present article aimed to provide information about the studies conducted on the employment of social robots in education, analyze the advantages and disadvantages of human-social robot interaction based on anthropomorphism and ontological boundary problem. Finally, certain recommendations are presented about the employment of social robots in education.


Download data is not yet available.


Ahmad, M. I., Khordi-moodi, M., Lohan, K. S. (2020). Social robot for stem education. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 90-92.

Airenti, G. (2015). The Cognitive Bases of Anthropomorphism: From Relatedness to Empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 117-127.

Alam, E. (2021). Should Robots Replace Teachers? Mobilisation of AI and Learning Analytics in Education. 2021 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication, and Control (ICAC3), 1-12.

Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., Haeri, N.S. (2017). Young EFL learners’ attitude towards RALL: An observational study focusing on motivation, anxiety, and interaction. In: A. Kheddar, E. Yoshida, S.S. Ge, K. Suzuki, J.-J. Cabibihan, F. Eyssel, H. He (Eds.), Social Robotics, 10652, 252-261, Springer.

Arkin, R. C., Fujita, M., Takagi, T. & Hasegawa, R. (2003). An ethological and emotional basis for human–robot interaction, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3-4), 191-201.

Arora, A. S., Fleming, M., Arora, A., Taras, V., & Xu, J. (2021). Finding “H” in HRI: Examining human personality traits, robotic anthropomorphism, and robot likeability in human-robot ınteraction. International Journal of Intelligent Information Technologies (IJIIT), 17(1), 19-38.

Asprino, L., Ciancarini, P., Nuzzolese, A. G., Presutti, V. & Russo, A. (2022). A reference architecture for social robots. Journal of Web Semantics, 72, 1570-8268.

Bainbridge, W.A., Hart, J.W., Kim, E.S. & Scassellati, B. (2011). The benefits of ınteractions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3, 41–52.

Balle, S.N. Empathic responses and moral status for social robots: an argument in favor of robot patienthood based on K. E. Løgstrup. AI & Society, 37, 535–548.

Baraka K., Alves-Oliveira P. & Ribeiro T. (2020). An extended framework for characterizing social robots. In Jost C. et al. (eds) Human-Robot Interaction. Springer Series on Bio- and Neurosystems, 12. Springer,

Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E. & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1, 71-81.

Beck, A. T. (2005). Bilişsel terapi ve duygusal bozukluklar, (A. Türkcan, Trans.), Litera Yayıncılık. (Orginal work published 1979).

Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B. & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review, Science Robotics, 3(21),

Beran, T. N., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Kuzyk, R., Fior, M. & Nugent, S. (2011). Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(7-8), 539-550.

Bernstein, D. & Crowley, K. (2008). Searching for Signs of Intelligent Life: An Investigation of Young Children's Beliefs About Robot Intelligence. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 225-247.

Björling, E.A., Rose, E., Davidson, A., Ren, R. & Wong, D. (2020). Can we keep him forever? Teens’ engagement and desire for emotional connection with a social robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12, 65–77.

Blut, M., Wang, C., Wünderlich, N.V. & Brock, C. (2021). Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: a meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 632-658.

Breazeal C., Dautenhahn K. & Kanda T. (2016). Social Robotics. In: Siciliano B., Khatib O. (eds) Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer.

Breazeal, C. (2003). Toward sociable robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 167-175.

Breazeal, C. (2011). Social robots for health applications. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 5368-5371.

Bryson, J. J. (2010) Why robot nannies probably won’t do much psychological damage. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 196–200.

Butterfield, M. E., Hill, S. E. & Lord, C. G. (2012). Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4) 2012, 957-960.

Carter, E. J., Reig, S., Tan, X. Z., Laput, G., Rosenthal, S. & Steinfeld, A. (2020). Death of a robot: Social media reactions and language usage when a robot stops operating. 2020 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 589-597.

Ceha, J., Law, E., Kulić, D. Oudeyer, P. Y. & Roy, D. (2021). Identifying Functions and Behaviours of Social Robots for In-Class Learning Activities: Teachers’ Perspective. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14, 747-761.

Chalmers, C., Keane, T., Boden, M. & Williams, M. (2022). Humanoid robots go to school. Education and Information Technologies,

Chen, H., Park, H. W., Breazeal, C. (2020). Teaching and learning with children: Impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children’s learning and emotive engagement. Computers & Education,150.

Crowell, C.R., Deska, J. C., Villano, M., Zenk, J. & Roddy Jr J. T. (2019). Anthropomorphism of Robots: Study of Appearance and Agency, JMIR Human Factors, 6 (2).

Damiano, L., & Dumouchel, P. (2018). Anthropomorphism in human–robot co-evolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 468.

Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, 362 (1480), 679–704.

de Graaf, M. M. A. & Allouch, S. B. (2013). Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(12), 1476-1486.

de Graaf, M.M.A. (2016). An Ethical Evaluation of Human–Robot Relationships. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8, 589–598,

de Jong, C., Peter, J., Kühne, R. & Barco, A. (2021). Children’s intention to adopt social robots: a model of its distal and proximal predictors. International Journal of Social Robotics,

de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A. B., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016). Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(3), 331–349.

Díaz, M., Nuño, N., Saez-Pons, J., Pardo, D. E. & Angulo, C. (2011). Building up child-robot relationship for therapeutic purposes: From initial attraction towards long-term social engagement. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG), 927-932.

DiSalvo, C. F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., & Kiesler, S. (2002). All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Designing İnteractive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, 321-326. https://doi. org/10.1145/778712.778756

Dokur, E. (2019). Canlandırma Sinemasında Hayvan Karakterleri ve Antropomorfizm. [Master tezi]. Anadolu Üniversitesi.

Donnermann M., Schaper P. & Lugrin B. (2020). Integrating a social robot in higher education–a field study. 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 573–579.

Dou, X., Wu, CF., Lin, KC., Gan, S. & Tseng, T. M. (2021). Effects of different types of social robot voices on affective evaluations in different application fields. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 615–628.

Döring, N., Poeschl, S. (2019). Love and sex with robots: a content analysis of media representations. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11, 665–677.

Dragan, A., Holladay, R. & Srinivasa, S. (2015). Deceptive robot motion: synthesis, analysis and experiments. Autonomous Robots, 39, 331–345.

Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 177-190.

Eddy, T. J., Gallup, G. G., & Povinelli, D. J. (1993). Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 87-101.

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886.

Eyssel, F. & Kuchenbrandt, D. (2012). Social categorization of social robots: Anthropomorphism as a function of robot group membership. Britisch Journal of Social Psychology, 51 (4), 724-731.

Eyssel, F. & Reich, N. (2013). Loneliness makes the heart grow fonder (of robots) - On the effects of loneliness on psychological anthropomorphism, 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 121-122.

Eyssel, F., Kuchenbrandt, D., Hegel, F. &. de Ruiter, L. (2012). Activating elicited agent knowledge: How robot and user features shape the perception of social robots. 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 851-857.

Festerling, J., Siraj, I. (2021). Anthropomorphizing Technology: A Conceptual Review of Anthropomorphism Research and How it Relates to Children’s Engagements with Digital Voice Assistants. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science,

Fink, J. (2012). Anthropomorphism and human likeness in the design of robots and human-robot ınteraction. In: Ge, S.S., Khatib, O., Cabibihan, JJ., Simmons, R., Williams, MA. (eds) Social robotics. Springer,

Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I. & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3), 143-166.

Fussell, S. R., Kiesler, S., Setlock, L. D. & Yew, V. (2008). How people anthropomorphize robots. 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 145-152,

Gazzola, V., Rizzolatti, G., Wicker, B. & Keysers, C. (2007). The anthropomorphic brain: the mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. Neuroimage 35(4), 1674–1684.

Gelin R. (2019) NAO. In: Goswami A., Vadakkepat P. (eds) Humanoid Robotics: A Reference. Springer,

Gordon G, Breazeal C (2015) Bayesian active learning-based robot tutor for children’s word-reading skills. Twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 29 (1).

Guggemos, J., Seufert, S., Sonderegger, S., Burkhard, M. (2022). Social Robots in Education: Conceptual Overview and Case Study of Use. In: Ifenthaler, D., Isaías, P., Sampson, D.G. (eds) Orchestration of Learning Environments in the Digital World. Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age. Springer,

Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press.

Guzman, A. L. (2020). Ontological boundaries between humans and computers and the ımplications for human-machine communication. Human-Machine Communication, 1, 37-54.

Gültekin, M. (2022). Yapay zekânın ruh sağlığı hizmetlerinde kullanımına ilişkin fırsatlar ve sorunlar, İnsan ve Toplum,

Haggadone, B. A., Banks, J. & Koban, K. (2021). Of robots and robotkind: Extending intergroup contact theory to social machines. Communication Research Reports, 38(3), 161-171.

Han, J. (2010). Robot-aided learning and r-learning services Human-robot interaction, Intech Open Access Publisher,

Hegel, F., Krach, S., Kircher, T., Wrede, B. & Sagerer, G. (2008). Understanding social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism, in Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN, 574-579.

Hegel, F., Lohse, M. & Wrede, B. (2009). Effects of visual appearance on the attribution of applications in social robotics. RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 64-71,

Heider F, & Simmel M (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259.

Hume, D. (1995). Din üstüne, (M.Tunçay, Trans.)., İmge Yayınları, 4. Baskı. (Orginal work published 1757).

International Federation of Robotics (2020a)Executive Summary World Robotics 2020 Industrial Robots.

International Federation of Robotics (2020b). Executive summary world robotics 2020 service robots.

Iphofen, R. & Kritikos, M. (2021). Regulating artificial intelligence and robotics: ethics by design in a digital society. Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences, 16(2).

Jipson, J. L., Gülgöz, S. & Gelman, S. A. (2016). Parent–child conversations regarding the ontological status of a robotic dog. Cognitive Development, 39, 21-35.

Jobin, A, Ienca, M & Vayena, E (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399.

Johal, W. (2020). Research trends in social robots for learning, Current Robotics Reports, 1, 75-83.

Johnson, W.L., Lester, J.C. (2016). Face-to-face ınteraction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 25-36.

Jones, R.A. (2021). Projective Anthropomorphism as a Dialogue with Ourselves. International Journal of Social Robotics,

Kabacińska, K., Prescott, T.J. & Robillard, J.M. (2021). Socially assistive robots as mental health ınterventions for children: A scoping review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 919-935.

Kahn, P. H. Jr., Reichert, A. L., Gary, H. E., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Shen, S., Ruckert, J. H., & Gill, B. T. (2011). The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 159-160.

Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Shen, S. (2017). NOC NOC, who's there? A new ontological category (NOC) for social robots. In N. Budwig, E. Turiel, & P. D. Zelazo (Eds.), New perspectives on human development, 106–122. Cambridge University Press.

Kahn, P. H., Jr., Friedman, B., and Hagman, J. (2002). “I care about him a s a pal”: Conceptions of robotic pets in online AIBO discussion forums. Extended Abstracts of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 632- 633. Association for Computing Machinery Press.

Kahn, P. H., Jr., Friedman, B., Perez-Granados, D. N., & Freier, N. G. (2006). Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. Interaction Studies, 7, 405-436.

Kahn, P. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N. G., Severson, R., Gill, B. T. & diğerleri. (2012). “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Devolepmental Psychology, 48(2), 303-314.

Kamide, H., Eyssel, F., Arai, T. (2013). Psychological anthropomorphism of robots. In: Herrmann, G., Pearson, M.J., Lenz, A., Bremner, P., Spiers, A., Leonards, U. (eds) Social Robotics. Springer,

Kaminski, M. E., Rueben, M., Smart, W. D. & Grimm, C. M. (2017). Averting robot eyes, Maryland Law Review, 76(4), 983–1025.

Kanero, J., Geçkin, V., Oranç, C., Mamus, E., Küntay, A. C., & Göksun, T. (2018). Social robots for early language learning: Current evidence and future directions. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 146-151.

Kaplan, F. (2004). Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of robots. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 1, 465–480.

Kätsyri, J., Förger, K., Mäkäräinen, M. & Takala T. (2015). A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Frontier Psychology. 10(6), 390.

Kennedy, J., Lemaignan, S., & Belpaeme, T. (2016). The cautious attitude of teachers towards social robots in schools. In Robots 4 Learning Workshop at IEEE RO-MAN.

Kim, E.S., Berkovits, L.D., Bernier, E.P., Leyzberg, D., Shic, F., Paul, R. & Scassellati, B. (2013). Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1038-1049.

Kim, Y. & Mutlu, B. (2014). How social distance shapes human–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(12) 2014, 783-795.

Koike, M., & Loughnan, S. (2021). Virtual relationships: Anthropomorphism in the digital age. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(6).

Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2020). Robot tutor and pupils’ educational ability: Teaching the times tables. Computers & Education, 157.

Kory-Westlund, J. M. and Breazal, C. (2019). A long-term study of young children's rapport, social emulation, and language learning with a peer-like robot playmate in preschool. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6.

Köse, H., Uluer, P., Akalın, N., Yorgancı, R., Özkul, A. & İnce, G. (2015). The effect of embodiment in sign language tutoring with assistive humanoid robots. International Jouarnal of Social Robotics, 7, 537-548.

Kubinyi, E., Pongrácz, P. & Miklósi, A. (2010). Can you kill a robot nanny? Ethological approach to the effect of robot caregivers on child development and human evolution. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 214 – 219.

Lambert, A., Norouzi, N., Bruder, G. & Welch, G. (2020). A systematic review of ten years of research on human interaction with social robots. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36 (19), 1804-1817.

Lay, S., Brace, N., Pike, G.. & Pollick, F. (2016). Circling Around the Uncanny Valley: Design Principles for Research Into the Relation Between Human Likeness and Eeriness. İ-perception, 6;7(6).

Lee, J., Lee, J. & Lee, D. (2021). Cheerful encouragement or careful listening: The dynamics of robot etiquette at Children's different developmental stages. Computers in Human Behavior, 118.

Leite, I., Martinho, C. & Paiva, A. (2013). Social robots for long-term ınteraction: a survey. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5, 291-308.

Leong, B. & Selinger, E. (2019) Robot eyes wide shut: understanding dishonest anthropomorphism. Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery's Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 299-308.

Lesage, K. A. & Richert, R. A. (2021). Can God do the impossible? Anthropomorphism and children’s certainty that God can make impossible things possible. Cognitive Development, 58.

Li, D., Rau, P.L.P. & Li, Y. A (2010). Cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2, 175-186.

Li, J (2015). The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 77, 23-37.

MacDorman, K. F. (2019) In the uncanny valley, transportation predicts narrative enjoyment more than empathy, but only for the tragic hero. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 140-153.

MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 7(3), 297–337.

Majgaard, G. (2015). Multimodal robots as educational tools in primary and lower secondary education. Proceedings of the International Conferences Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction, 27–34.

Manzi, F., Peretti, G., Di Dio, C., Cangelosi, A., Itakura, S., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Massaro, D., & Marchetti, A. (2020). A robot is not worth another: Exploring children's mental state attribution to different humanoid robots. Frontiers in psychology, 11.

McCurry, J. (2018) Japan: Robot dogs get solemn Buddhist send-off at funerals. The Guardian,

Melson, G. F., Kahn, P. H., Jr., Beck, A. M., Friedman, B., Roberts, T., Garrett, E., & Gill, B. T. (2009). Children’s behavior toward and understanding of robotic and living dogs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 92-102.

Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley: the original essay by Masahiro Mori,

Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F. & Kageki, N. (2012). The Uncanny Valley [From the Field], IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19 (2), 98-100.

Newton, D. & Newton, L. (2019). Humanoid robots as teachers and a proposed code of practice., Frontiers in Education., 4,

Nigam, M. K. & Klahr, D. (2000). If robots make choices, are they alive? Children’s judg - ments of the animacy of intelligent artifacts. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 22.

Oranç, C., & Küntay, A. C. (2020). Children’s perception of social robots as a source of information across different domains of knowledge. Cognitive Development, 54.

Papadopoulos, I., Lazzarino, R., Miah, S., Weaver, T., Thomas, B. & Koulouglioti, C. (2020). A systematic review of the literature regarding socially assistive robots in pre-tertiary education, Computers & Education, 155,

Özdemir, D. and Karaman, S. (2017). Investigating interactions between students with mild mental retardation and humanoid robot in terms of feedback types. Education and Science, 42(191) 109-138.

Powers, A., Kiesler, S., Fussell, S. & Torrey, C. (2007). Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot. 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 145-152.

Pradhan, A., Findlater, L. & Lazar, A. (2019). "Phantom friend" or "Just a box with information": Personification and ontological categorization of smart speaker-based voice assistants by older adults. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 1-21.

Prescott, T. J. & Robillard, J. M. (2020). Are friends electric? The benefits and risks of human-robot relationships, Perspective, 24(1).

Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2020). The common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. final_web.pdf.

Robaczewski, A., Bouchard, J., Bouchard, K. & Gaboury, S. (2021). Socially assistive robots: The specific case of the NAO. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 795-831.

Roesler, E., Naendrup-Poell, L., Manzey, D. & Onnasch, L. (2022). Why context matters: The influence of application domain on preferred degree of anthropomorphism and gender attribution in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics,

Rogers, K. & Howard, A. (2021). Intelligent agent deception and the ınfluence on human trust and ınteraction. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), 200-205.

Sætra, H. S. (2021). Social robot deception and the culture of trust, Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 12(1), 276-286.

Sarrica, M., Brondi, S. & Fortunati, L. (2020). How many facets does a “social robot” have? A review of scientific and popular definitions online, Information Technology & People, 33(1), 1-21.

Saylor, M. M., Somanader, M., Levin, D. T. & Kawamura, K. (2010). How do young children deal with hybrids of living and non-living things: the case of humanoid robots. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(4):835-51.

Serholt, S., Barendregt, W., Vasalou, A., Alves-Oliveira, P., Jones, A., Petisca, S. & Paiva, A. (2017). The case of classroom robots: teachers’ deliberations on the ethical tensions. AI & Society, 32, 613–631.

Serpell, J. A. (2003). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection--beyond the "cute response". Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 11(1), 83-100.

Severson, R. L. & Carlson, S. M. (2010). Behaving as or behaving as if? Children’s conceptions of personified robots and the emergence of a new ontological category. Neural Networks, 23(8-9), 1099-1103.

Shahid, S., Krahmer, E. & Swerts, M. (2014). Child–robot interaction across cultures: How does playing a game with a social robot compare to playing a game alone or with a friend? Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 86-100.

Shamsudhin, N., Jotterand, F. (2021). Social robots and dark patterns: Where does persuasion end and deception begin?. In: Jotterand, F., Ienca, M. (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Brain and Mental Health: Philosophical, Ethical & Policy Issues. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer,

Sharkey, A. & Sharkey, N. (2011). Children, the elderly, and ınteractive robots. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 18(1), 32-38.

Sharkey, A.J.C. (2016). Should we welcome robot teachers?, Ethics and Information Technology, 18, 283-297. (2016).

Sharkey, N., van Wynsberghe, A., Robbins, S., & Hancock, E. (2017). Our sexual future with robots, Foundation for Responsible Robotics.

Sheridan, T. B. (2020). A review of recent research in social robotics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 7-12.

Shih, C., Chang, C. & Chen, G. (2007). Robot as a storytelling partner in the english classroom - preliminary discussion. Seventh IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2007), 678-682.

Shin, H.I., Kim, J. (2020). My computer is more thoughtful than you: Loneliness, anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Psychology, 39, 445–453.

Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Howley, I., Kotaro, H. & Hagita, N. (2015). Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms?, International Jouarnal of Social Robotics, 7, 641-652.

Smakman, M. Vogt, P. & Konijn, E. A. (2021). Moral considerations on social robots in education: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Computers & Education, 174.

Song, Y., Luximon, A. & Luximon, Y. (2021). The effect of facial features on facial anthropomorphic trustworthiness in social robots. Applied Ergonomics, 94.

Sparrow, R. (2002). The March of the robot dogs. Ethics and Information Technology, 4, 305–318.

Stock-Homburg, R. (2022) Survey of emotions in human–robot ınteractions: perspectives from robotic psychology on 20 years of research. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14, 389–411.

Stower, R., Calvo-Barajas, N., Castellano, G. & Kappas, A. (2021). A meta-analysis on children’s trust in social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 1979–2001.

Suzuki, Y., Galli, L., Ikeda, A., Itakura, S. & Kitazaki, M, (2015). Measuring empathy for human and robot hand pain using electroencephalography. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 1-9.

Şimşek, N. (2015). Ksenophanes’in tanri anlayışı. Felsefe Arkivi, 43(II), 65-81.

Tolksdorf, N.F., Siebert, S., Zorn, I., Horwath, I. & Rohlfing, K. J. (2021). Ethical considerations of applying robots in kindergarten settings: Towards an approach from a macroperspective. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 129-140.

Tung, F. W. (2016). Child perception of humanoid robot appearance and behavior. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 32(6), 493-502.

Turkle, S. (2010). In good company? in Wilks Y. (Ed) Close Engagements with Artificial Companions, 3–10, Benjamins.

Turkle, S. (2018). Empathy machines: forgetting the body. In: Vaia Tsolas and Christine Anzieu-Premmereur (Eds.) A psychoanalytic exploration of the body in today’s world on body. Routledge, Taylor&Francis Group.

Turkle, S., Taggart, W., Kidd, C. D. & Dasté, O. (2006) Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science, 18(4), 347-361.

Türkçapar, M. H. (2012). Bilişsel terapi, HYB yayıncılık.

van den Berghe, R., de Haas, M., Oudgenoeg‐Paz, O., Krahmer, E., Verhagen, J., Vogt, P., Willemsen, B., de Wit, J. & Leseman, P. (2020). A toy or a friend? children's anthropomorphic beliefs about robots and how these relate to second‐language word learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 1–15.

van Esch, P., Arli, D., Gheshlaghi, M. H., Andonopoulos, V., von der Heidt, T. & Northey, G. (2019). Anthropomorphism and augmented reality in the retail environment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 35-42.

van Straten, C.L., Peter, J. & Kühne, R. (2020). Child–robot relationship formation: a narrative review of empirical research. International Jouarnal of Social Robotics, 12, 325–344.

Varella M. (2018). The biology and evolution of the three psychological tendencies to anthropomorphize biology and evolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.

Vollmer, A. L., Read, R., Trippas, D. & Belpaeme, T. (2018). Children conform, adults resist: A robot group induced peer pressure on normative social conformity. Science Robotics, 3(21).

Wan, E.W. & Chen, R. P. (2021). Anthropomorphism and object attachment. Current Opinon in Psychology, 39, 88-93.

Wang, S., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Rochat, P. (2015). The uncanny valley: Existence and explanations. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 393–407.

Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 410-435.

Willemse, C. J. A. M., Toet, A. & van Erp, J. B. F. (2017). Affective and behavioral responses to robot-ınitiated social touch: toward understanding the opportunities and limitations of physical contact in human–robot ınteraction. Frontiers in ICT, 4 (12),

Williams, M. O., Whitmarsh, L. & Chríost, D. M. G. (2021). The association between anthropomorphism of nature and pro-environmental variables: A systematic review. Biological Conservation, 255.

Woo, H., LeTendre, G. K., Pham-Shouse, T. & Xiong, Y. (2021). The use of social robots in classrooms: A review of field-based studies. Educational Research Review, 33.

Yin, J., Wang, S., Guo, W., & Shao, M. (2021). More than appearance: The uncanny valley effect changes with a robot’s mental capacity. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. Advance online publication,

Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K. & Bartneck, C. (2015). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot ınteraction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 347-360

Additional Files



How to Cite

Gültekin, M. (2022). Human-Social Robot Interaction, Anthropomorphism and Ontological Boundary Problem in Education. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 11(3), 751–773.