Anthropomorphic cues can be useful in the design of social robots to ensure an intuitive human-robot interaction. However, anthropomorphic design is not just human-like in general, but often a stereotypical portrayal of a specific social group. Using the example of a fictional case study, namely a wheelchair robot representing disabled persons in public spaces, this paper examines the ethical implication of humanoid robots representing social groups. Three arguments are discussed: Firstly, stereotypically designed robots can make implicit stereotypes explicit and hence raise awareness. Secondly, robots can represent underrepresented social groups and thus draw attention to minorities. However, thirdly, the question is raised whether the representation by a robot is legitimate or on the contrary, a dehumanization of the respective group. The aim of this paper is not to answer whether robots should or should not represent social groups but raise awareness of the problem of stereotypical design.

Concern with the potential harmful effects of the implementation of multimodal AI in robots and of AI in general is rising. There is more and more recognition that roboticists should not be left alone with the development of ethical technologies and that they need the support of experts from other disciplines. Interdisciplinary design methods are developed to make sure that the new technologies serve and are respectful of their target users. This paper argues that while methods like value-based design are essential to ensure that new social robots serve their target population, they are not sufficient. Risks connected to the unintended use of the technology are likely to be overlooked and some risk mitigation strategies might not be accessible to robot designers. Lastly, the current system does not offer enough support or incentives to engage in a time-consuming although ethical process. We end by identifying multi-level strategies to improve the situation. 

This paper argues that conventional blame practices fall short of capturing the complexity of moral experiences, neglecting power dynamics and discriminatory social practices. It is evident that robots, embodying roles linked to specific social groups, pose a risk of reinforcing stereotypes of how these groups behave or should behave, so they set a normative and descriptive standard. The societal roots of these roles necessitate an examination of how individuals react to errors based on the assumed social identity of the robot. This theoretical and empirical gap becomes even more urgent to address as there have been indications of potential carryover effects from Human-Robot Interactions (HRI) to Human-Human Interactions (HHI). We therefore urge roboticists and designers to stay in an ongoing conversation about how social traits are conceptualised and implemented in this technology. Apart from considering ethical aspects in the design phase of social robots, we see our analysis as a call for more research on the consequences of robot genderedness, blame attribution, emotional responses, and stereotyping.