Abstract
Human-robot interaction (HRI) claims that people form attachments and social bonds with artificial agents, yet the terms are often applied without the behavioural and physiological criteria that give them content in their source disciplines. Without this empirical grounding, studies deploy widely divergent methods, frequently producing expansive relational claims that far outstrip their underlying evidence. To address this, we propose a standardised four-question procedure, grounded in criteria established in the developmental, ethological, and neuroendocrine literatures, that classifies a given human-robot tie as an attachment, an affective social bond, or no relationship, with intermediate classifications when evidence is incomplete. We specify minimum evidential requirements for each question, and provide candidate HRI study designs, adapted from validated human-human, human-animal, and animal-animal paradigms. We then demonstrate the procedure by applying it to a representative set of published HRI studies, showing how often relational claims outstrip what the reported designs can establish. Finally, we discuss the ethical and regulatory burdens created when artificial agents engage human biobehavioural systems. By replacing the divergent operationalisations with a unified, criterion-based classification, this paper gives HRI practitioners a standardised basis for evaluating, classifying, and comparing human-robot relationships, and sets out the experimental rigour that each classification demands. We therefore call on researchers of human-robot relationships to adopt such rigour, or to consider alternative terminology in their descriptions of these ties.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.29063
