ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Robot. AI
Sec. Soft Robotics
Informing Robot Design through Early Public Engagement: Lay Perceptions of Soft versus Rigid Socially Assistive and Rescue Robots
Julius Fenn 1,2
Louisa Estadieu 1,3
Michael Gorki 1,2
Irina Monno 2
Falk J Tauber (né Esser) 1
Joscha Teichmann 1
Shelly Levy-Tzedek 4,5
Thomas Speck 1,6
Oliver Müller 1,7
Andrea Kiesel 1,2
1. Cluster of Excellence livMatS @ FIT Freiburg Center for Interactive Materials and Bioinspired Technologies, Freiburg, Germany
2. Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg Institut fur Psychologie, Freiburg, Germany
3. Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland
4. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Recanati School for Community Health Professions, Be'er Sheva, Israel
5. Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies, Freiburg, Germany
6. Plant Biomechanics Group @ Botanic Garden Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
7. Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg Philosophische Fakultat, Freiburg, Germany
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract
As soft robots become more prevalent in society, it becomes increasingly important to understand how laypersons evaluate their risks and benefits relative to conventional rigid robots. This article investigates public perceptions of soft versus rigid embodiments of socially assistive robots (SAR) and rescue robots (RR) and explores how these perceptions can inform early-stage robot design. We conducted an online study, using a scenario-based intervention design combined with Cognitive-Affective Maps (CAMs) to capture participants' cognitive–emotional belief structures. In a first step, participants constructed CAMs depicting perceived risks and benefits of rigid SAR or RR. After reading a second scenario introducing the corresponding soft robot, they revised their maps, , allowing a direct contrastive comparison between the first (rigid) and second (soft) scenario. Quantitative analyses showed that, across both application domains, post-intervention evaluations (after the soft-robot scenarios) were more positive than pre-intervention evaluations of rigid robots. Qualitative analyses revealed distinct argument structures: After learning about soft robots, participants added concepts emphasizing safety, emotional comfort, and adaptability, but also introduced concerns such as fragility and emotional dependence, whereas rigid robots were linked to precision, robustness, and efficiency, alongside worries about technical failure, data security, and emotional detachment. By integrating intervention-based CAMs with data-driven qualitative synthesis, the study demonstrates a scalable method for early public engagement that uncovers how laypersons qualitatively negotiate trade-offs between soft and rigid designs in plausible early-stage scenarios. These insights provide actionable input for human-centered design of soft robots, supporting responsible and socially aligned robot development.
Summary
Keywords
Design Evaluation, multi-method study, Perceived risks and benefits, public perception, search and rescue robots, socially assistiverobots, soft robots
Received
07 November 2025
Accepted
19 February 2026
Copyright
© 2026 Fenn, Estadieu, Gorki, Monno, Tauber (né Esser), Teichmann, Levy-Tzedek, Speck, Müller and Kiesel. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Julius Fenn
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.