Blessing Robot BlessU2: A Discursive Design Study to Understand the Implications of Social Robots in Religious Contexts

  • Diana LöfflerEmail author
  • Jörn Hurtienne
  • Ilona Nord
S.I. : Religion in Robotics


As robots are continuing to enter social spaces such as religion and spirituality, the timing is right to determine desirable scenarios and design factors appropriate for the deployment of technology in these contexts. We present two studies that empirically investigate the user experience, acceptability and design features of social robots on the example of a Protestant blessing ritual. In the first discursive design study, blessing robot BlessU2 interacted with more than 10,000 visitors of a public exhibition. We analysed the written comments left by 1923 visitors to understand more about the implications of robotics in religious practice. Overall, most comments were positive (51%), many neutral (29%) and some negative (20%). Four preferable scenarios for religious robots were derived: to demonstrate human creativity, to increase the reach of religious institutions and personnel, to offer service when there is no alternative, and to enhance service with unique robot capabilities. In a second study, we varied the appearance, behaviour, and functionality of the blessing robot, but found virtually no differences in quantitative measures on emotions and users’ perceptions of the robots. The qualitative interview data, however, revealed strong preferences towards a specific set of characteristics. These are discussed in the light of previous guidelines for the design of ‘theomorphic’ robots and questions for future research are derived.


Robots Religion Discursive design Automation Desirable futures Speculative design Techno-spirituality 



We thank the visitors who commented on BlessU2. We also would like to thank the Protestant Church of Hesse and Nassau who made the comments available to our analysis. We thank David Sauer, Tabea Blenk and Jonas Kraft for digitalising the comment forms, as well as Michael Rojkov and Swantje Luthe for their help in conducting the second study. We thank our participants for their time in our second study, and the SuSaGroup for providing a free academic license for the PrEmo tool for its duration. We thank LuxAI S.A. for letting us test robot “QT” during a trial order.


This study was partly funded by the Equality Commission of Würzburg University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

For the anonymous, voluntary survey in study 1, no signed, informed consent form is required. This form would have been the only record linking the subjects and the research, thereby increasing the principal risk of potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Moreover, the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involved no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context. For study 2, informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Groover MP (2010) Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: materials, processes, and systems. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hassenzahl M, Diefenbach S, Göritz A (2010) Needs, affect, and interactive products—Facets of user experience. Interact Comput 22(5):353–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winfield N (2018) The vatican is facing a priest shortage. Bloomberg. Retrieved July 9, 2018 from
  4. 4.
    Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):27–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welge J, Hassenzahl M (2016) Better than human: about the psychological superpowers of robots. Springer, Cham, pp 993–1002. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foerst A (2009) Von robotern, mensch und gott : künstliche intelligenz und die existentielle dimension des lebens. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kunz S (2006) Transzendenz und Selbsttranszendenz—Grenzen zwischen Mensch und Roboter aus theologisch- philosophischer Sicht. Marburger Theologische Studien. Künstliche Intelligenz und menschliche Person. N.G. Elwert Verlag Marburg, Marburg, pp 219–231Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tillich P. Systematic theology. (Vol. 2), Existence and the Christ, University of ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas G (2016) The mediatization of religion—as temptation, seduction, and illusion. Media Cult Soc 38(1):37–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wood C (2017) Barriers to innovation diffusion for social robotics start-ups: and methods of crossing the chasm.
  11. 11.
    Francis P (2016) Communication and Mercy: A Fruitful Encounter. Message for the 50th World Communications Day. Retrieved July 11, 2018 from
  12. 12.
    Kirchenschläger PG (2016) Digitalisierung und Robotisierung der Gesellschaft aus theologisch-ethischer Perspektive. theologisches Feuilleton. Retrieved July 17, 2018 from
  13. 13.
    Ohly L (2018) Für eine kategoriale Verwendung des Statusbegriffs. Bemerkungen eines Prozessbeobachters. In Segensroboter, geistliche Handlungen und künstliche Intelligenz (KI) : theologisch-ethischer Studientag an der Evangelischen Akademie Frankfurt, 4. November 2017. Gemeinschaftswerk der Evangelischen Publizistik (GEP) gGmbH, 29–37Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christaller T, Decker M, Gilsbach JM, Hirzinger G, Lauterbach KW, Schweighofer E, Schweitzer G, Sturma D (2001) Robotik Perspektiven für menschliches Handeln in der zukünftigen Gesellschaft. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    King E (2002) Clockwork prayer: a sixteenth-century mechanical masterpiece. Blackbird Online J Lit Arts 1:1Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Han B (2015) Beijing’s Longquan temple adopts modern approach. CCTV News.
  17. 17.
    Martin A (2017) Pepper the robot to don Buddhist robe for its new funeral services role. The Japan Times, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uriu D, Odom W, Gould H (2018) Proceedings of the 2018 on designing, and undefined 2018. Understanding automatic conveyor-belt columbaria: Emerging sites of interactive memorialization in Japan. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trovato G, Lucho A, Ramon A, Ramirez R, Rodriguez L, Cuellar F (2018) The creation of SanTO: a robot with “divine” features”. In: 15th international conference on ubiquitous robotsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trovato G, Cuellar F, Nishimura M (2016) Introducing “theomorphic robots.” In: 2016 IEEE-RAS 16th international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids), 1245–1250.
  21. 21.
    Trovato G, Lucho C, Huerta-Mercado A, Cuellar F (2018) Design strategies for representing the divine in robots. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction—HRI’18, 29–35.
  22. 22.
    Ackerman E (2018) Can a robot be divine? IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved July 16, 2018 from
  23. 23.
    Taylor B (ed) (2008) Encyclopedia of religion and nature, Volume 1, Bloomsbury PublishingGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beauchamp G (1980) The Frankenstein Complex and Asimov’s Robots. Mosaic: Interdiscip Crit J 13:83–94.
  25. 25.
    Kelly W, Schodt FL (1989) Inside the robot kingdom: Japan, mechatronics, and the coming robotopia. Monumenta Nipponica 44(1):133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dörrenbächer J, Plüm K (2016) Beseelte dinge: design aus perspektive des animismus (Vol. 35). transcript VerlagGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dunne A, Raby F (2013) Speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press, CambridegeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tharp BM, Tharp S (2018) Discursive design: critical, speculative, and alternative things. MIT Press, CambridegeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meltwater (2017) BlessU-2 Monitoring Report 1.10.2016–11.09.2017Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mayring P (2010) Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. In Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 601–613.
  31. 31.
    Norman DA (2004) Three levels of design: visceral, behavioral, and reflective. Emotional design: 63–98Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Foucault B, Melican J (2007) The digital and the divine: taking a ritual view of communication and ict interaction. In: Aykin N (ed) Usability and internationalization: HCI and culture. Springer, Berlin, pp 74–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scholtz CP (2008) Alltag mit künstlichen Wesen: Theologische Implikationen eines Lebens mit subjektsimulierenden Maschinen am Beispiel des Unterhaltungsroboters Aibo: Research in Contemporary Religion 3. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GöttingenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Koay KL, Walters ML (2009) The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human-robot interaction study. In: Adaptive and emergent behaviour and complex systemsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Measure Consumer Emotions & Product Experience: PrEmo. Retrieved July 18, 2018 from
  36. 36.
    Bartneck C, Kulić D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):71–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Złotowski J, Proudfoot D, Yogeeswaran K, Bartneck C (2015) Anthropomorphism: opportunities and challenges in human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 7(3):347–360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boer L, Bewley H (2018) Reconfiguring the appearance and expression of social robots by acknowledging their otherness. In Proceedings of the 2018 on designing interactive systems conference 2018—DIS’18, 667–677.
  39. 39.
    Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114(4):864–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Alenljung B, Lindblom J, Andreasson R, Ziemke T (2017) User experience in social human–robot interaction. Int J Ambient Comput Intell 8(2):12–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Buie E (2018) Exploring techno-spirituality: design strategies for transcendent user experiences (Doctoral dissertation, Northumbria University)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Turkle S (2017) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Hachette, New York. Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Burch J (2018) AIBO robot dogs given buddhist funeral in japan. National Geographic. Retrieved July 20, 2018 from–a-buddhist-funeral-service-for-robot-dogs/
  44. 44.
    Schonenberg B, Bartneck C (2010). Mysterious machines. In: Proceeding of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction—HRI’10, 349.
  45. 45.
    Buchner R, Wurhofer D, Weiss A, Manfred Tscheligi M (2013) Robots in time: how user experience in human-robot interaction changes over time. Springer, Cham, pp 138–147. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Siegen UniversitySiegenGermany
  2. 2.Würzburg UniversityWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations