Purpose: On the verge of what has been hailed as the next technological revolution, the purpose of this paper is to examine scientific and popular definitions of the social robot, reflecting on how expert and lay spheres of knowledge interact. Drawing on social representations theory, this paper aims to elucidate how social robots are named and classified, and to examine the dynamics contributing to their definition. Design/methodology/approach: Scientific and popular definitions of the social robot were investigated by conducting: a systematic review of relevant articles published from 2009 to 2015 in the International Journal of Social Robotics; an analysis of the definitions retrievable from the scientific literature using Google Scholar; and an assessment of the interest in the public sphere, and of the popular definitions retrievable online (by inputting “social robot” in Google Trends, and in Google). Findings: Scientific definitions of the social robot adopt two strategies, one drawing on and merging previous definitions, the other proposing new, visionary, forward-looking definitions. Popular online definitions of social robots attribute new emotional, linguistic and social capabilities to their physical body. Research limitations/implications: The findings need to be confirmed by further research, given the limited size of the data sets considered, and the distortions in the data due to filters and the opacity of the online tools employed. Originality/value: Both scientific and non-scientific definitions see social robots as being capable of interacting with and working for humans, but attribute them a different degree of (functional or full) autonomy. In future, any controversy over the connotation of social robots is likely to concern their sociality and autonomy rather than their functionality.

This paper investigates the dimensions of trust and the role of information sources and channels in developing differentiated forms of science communication. The discussions from two public consultations carried out in Italy and Slovakia about controversial science-related topics were quali-quantitatively content analysed. The results show that scientific knowledge pervades diverse communication spheres, producing differentiated paths of trust in science. Each path is determined by topics (environment or health-related), information sources and channels preferred, and specific features of the multifaceted notion of trust. The contribution discusses cross-national commonalities and specificities and proposes implications for science communication.

This article examines the contents of the representations of sustainable energy in Italy from 2009 to 2011. In particular it explores the representations of energy, energy systems, and users. The article's starting point was the assumption that critical points may change the relationship between communities and the represented issues, and that new representations may be dialogically elaborated following relevant societal events. Political debates and newspaper articles dealing with sustainable energy were subjected to content analyses. Results show that the representations bear witness to the prevalence of economic and strategic approaches and a view of citizens whereby, even when involved in decentralized systems, they are required to stay passive. Alternative contents seem not to challenge the hegemonic view of energy. A clear trend toward sustainability is lacking, suggesting the absence of a continuing motivation to look at energy taking into account the civic growth of the population.

This paper provides a systematic overview of the psychosocial contribution to decarbonization studies and critically discusses current trends. Following the PRISMA protocol, we reviewed 404 articles informing how socio-psychological processes affect decarbonization, and vice versa, and highlighting research gaps and biases. Contrary to criticisms about methodological individualism and reductionism of socio-psychological research on sustainability, the review illustrates that the field is equally attentive to psychosocial processes operating at different levels, including the individual (e.g., attitudes, stress, environmental concerns), community (e.g., collective identity, justice, sense of place), and socio-cultural levels (e.g., social norms, values, memory). However, evidence shows some problematic trends in the literature: (i) A bias toward specific agents and geographies, which overlooks mesoscale actors (e.g., media, unions, NGOs) and developing and eastern countries; (ii) instrumental and normative views of transitions, which coincide with a prevailing focus on cognitive processes and a selective bias toward technologies, policies, places, and natural resources conceived as instrumental to decarbonization. This also emphasizes how biophysical processes, people–nature relationships, and the role of emotions in understanding the psychology of agents and decarbonization processes are almost absent; (iii) a research gaze normatively oriented toward the future, which risks neglecting continuity–discontinuity dynamics and the timing and pace of transitions.