Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36211890›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2022

The time is ripe for robopsychology.

Christian U Krägeloh, Jaishankar Bharatharaj, Jordi Albo-Canals, Daniel Hannon, Marcel Heerink

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Editorial: Moral psychology of AI.Frontiers in psychology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christian U KrägelohPAIR Lab New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jaishankar BharatharajPAIR Lab India, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Jordi Albo-CanalsLighthouse Disruptive Innovation Group, LLC., Cambridge, MA, United States.
Daniel HannonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Marcel HeerinkSaxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As robotic applications become increasingly diverse, more domains of human lives are being involved, now also extending to educational, therapeutic, and social situations, with a trend to even more complex interactions. This diversity generates new research questions that need to be met with an adequate infrastructure of psychological methods and theory. In this review, we illustrate the current lack of a sub-discipline in psychology to systematically study the psychological corollaries of living in societies where the application of robotic and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies is becoming increasingly common. We thus propose that organized efforts be made toward recognition of robopsychology as a sub-discipline so that the field of psychology moves away from isolated publications of robot- and AI-related topics to a body of knowledge that is able to meet the demands for change, as the world is preparing for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. We propose a definition of robopsychology that not only covers the study of the effects of robots on human behavior, but also of robots and AI themselves, as well as acknowledging how this sub-discipline may eventually be fundamentally changed through robots and AI. In this sense, our definition mirrors an already existing definition of the field of robophilosophy.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencepsychologyrobopsychologyrobotic psychologyrobot psychologyrobotsspecial interest groupsub-discipline

Identifiers

PMID36211890
PMCPMC9536172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.