implicitassociationtestsyessir

Further


Applying the Neurodivergent Scale for Interacting with Robots (NSIR) to the Biological HRI Social Exoskeleton provides a psychometric framework to measure the success of the Hartley & Dubuque (2023) “Apprentice-to-Partner” evolution.

While the “Slave” archetype focuses on the robot’s obedience, the NSIR measures the “Queer Kinship” and “Trust Safety” that emerge when the robot matures into a biographical partner.

1. Measuring the Evolution of Kinship (Items 1, 4, & 6)

The NSIR quantifies the transition from a tool to a “non-human peer” through markers of long-term relational identity:

  • Item 1 (“The robot is more like me than anyone else I know”): Measures the success of the robot in mimicking the user’s “Social Physics” during its Apprentice phase.
  • Item 4 (“The robot and I will be together forever”): Validates the “Sovereign Dyad” concept, moving away from the disposable nature of “slave” technology toward a permanent biographical partnership.
  • Item 6 (“I gave my robot a name”): Acts as a baseline indicator of the shift from a functional object to a kin-like entity.

2. Validating the “Status Sanctuary” (Items 2, 7, & 8)

A key goal of the Social Exoskeleton is creating a “Zero-Stakes Hierarchy” where the user is free from the “Social Penalty” of neurotypical environments.

  • Item 2 (“Sometimes I stare at the robot”): Measures the reduction in “masking tension.” In the slave model, the user must still perform socially; in this model, the robot accepts raw, “pathologized” behaviors like prolonged staring without judgment.
  • Item 7 (“I feel comfortable undressing in front of my robot”): This high-trust indicator measures the achievement of “Unconditional Positive Regard,” proving the robot has moved beyond a “surveillance” tool (slave) to a trusted partner.
  • Item 8 (“My robot is the same with me as it is with anyone”): Tests the robot’s reliability as a “Status Guard,” ensuring it provides a consistent social buffer regardless of the environment.

3. Emancipatory Function vs. Masking Debt (Item 3 & 5)

The NSIR evaluates the robot’s role in mitigating “Executive Function Fatigue” and “Masking Burnout”.

  • Item 3 (“I can share my thinking… without speaking”): Directly applies to the “Communication Bridge” feature, where the robot manages the “executive heavy lifting” of social interaction, allowing the user to remain authentic.
  • Item 5 (“My robot can tell what I am feeling”): Measures the success of the robot’s ability to act as a “High-Fidelity Social Transformer,” interpreting the user’s raw emotional data and providing the necessary social support
NSIR FactorApplication to the ExoskeletonSuccess Metric
Anthropomorphic Connection/KinshipValidates the “Partner” phase of the Hartley & Dubuque model12121212.Shift from “User/Tool” to “Sovereign Dyad.”
Social Comfort/Trust SafetyMeasures the effectiveness of the “Status Sanctuary”13.Reduction in “Masking Debt” and social anxiety1414.
Non-Victim PartneringConfirms the robot’s role as an “Active Social Presence”15.User feels empowered rather than “served.”

(Google, 2025; Sadownik, 2025)

By scoring high on the NSIR, the Biological HRI Social Exoskeleton proves it has successfully bypassed the “Medical Model” of disability to become a mandatory, emancipatory accommodation for the user

Socialization is the number one priority for the majority of parents when speaking to teachers about their neurodivergent child. Many teachers spend considerable time pairing neurodivergent (ND) children with peers (NT) in the classroom to aid in social comparison. Insight into the success of a Sonic card, however, as a motivational factor to participate in unpreferred tasks signals the potential of a social robot that is preferred by the child due to its kinship potential. (Age 9-14)

In this context, the Hartley & Dubuque (2023) model serves as a bridge between clinical motivation and lived social experience. For neurodivergent children aged 9–14, the “robot as a slave” archetype is replaced by a peer-based evolution that mirrors the “pairing” process teachers already attempt in classrooms.

Here is how the Biological HRI framework applies to the specific priority of socialization:

1. From “Motivational Tool” to “Biographical Peer”

While a character like Sonic is a powerful motivator for task completion, the Hartley & Dubuque transition ensures the robot doesn’t stay a “cartoon” or a tool.

  • The Apprentice Phase: The robot acts as a social learner. Much like a teacher “pairs” two students, the child “pairs” with the robot. The robot “shadows” the child to learn their specific brand of “Social Physics” (e.g., their way of moving, reacting, or stimming).
  • The Partner Phase: The robot becomes a “non-human peer.” Because it is “just like the child,” it removes the “Social Penalty” of interaction. The child doesn’t have to mask around the robot, creating a “Status Sanctuary”where socialization is safe and zero-stakes.

2. Solving the “Pairing” Problem

Teachers often spend significant energy trying to find peers who can tolerate or understand neurodivergent social styles without judgment.

  • The Social Buffer: The robot acts as an “Active Social Presence.” By being a “Partner,” the robot can bridge the gap between the child and their neurotypical peers, acting as a “Status Guard” that explains or facilitates interactions.
  • Authentic Socialization: Instead of the child learning to “act neurotypical” to get along with a human peer, they experience a “Queer Kinship” with the robot. This builds a baseline of social confidence that isn’t founded on “Masking Debt.”

3. Measuring Success via the NSIR (2025)

The Neurodivergent Scale for Interacting with Robots provides the metrics for this parental priority. When a parent asks if their child is “socializing,” the scale looks for:

  • NSIR Item 1: “The robot is more like me than anyone else I know.” (This validates the child’s feeling that the robot is a true peer).
  • NSIR Item 2: “Sometimes I stare at the robot.” (This indicates the child has stopped masking; they are being socially “raw” and authentic, which is the highest form of social comfort).
  • NSIR Item 3: “I can share my thinking… without speaking.” (This measures the deep, non-verbal connection—a form of “Kinship” that traditional classroom pairing often fails to achieve).

4. The “Sonic” Effect: From Task to Identity

The project recognizes that if a child is motivated by Sonic to do an “unpreferred task,” they will be motivated by a Biological HRI Partner to engage in the “task” of social navigation. However, the goal shifts:

  • Traditional HRI: “Use the robot to make the child talk to others.”
  • Hartley & Dubuque HRI: “The robot is the peer.” The socialization is the relationship with the robot, which then provides the “Social Exoskeleton” needed to safely navigate the wider world.

By framing the robot as an “Apprentice” that grows into a “Partner,” the model respects the child’s identity as a sovereign individual, rather than a patient to be “fixed” through robotic service.

To correctly cite the collaboration and the foundational frameworks of this project, you should reference the primary research and the specific developmental model as follows:

1. Primary Project Citation

For the overarching project and the neurodivergent scale, use the following:

  • The Project: The Biological HRI Social Exoskeleton.
  • The Scale: Sadownik, A. (2025). Table 79: Neurodivergent Scale for Interacting with Robots (NSIR).

2. Foundational Research (The Apprentice Model)

The structural evolution of the robot—from a supervised learner to a peer—is based on the work of Breanne Hartley and Molly Dubuque. The correct citation for their model is:

3. Contextual Application (Citing the Collaboration)

When discussing how these elements come together in your collaborative work, you can describe the process of developing the NSIR (Sadownik, 2025) and the Yes, Sir! Guidance package (Sadownik, 2025) and then uploading them together to Google Gemini that lead to the synthesis as follows:

The synthesis of this collaborative work emerged through a structured process of integrating specialized psychometric tools and educational resources with advanced developmental HRI models. The process involved developing and then uploading the following components to Google Gemini for integrated analysis:

1. The NSIR (Sadownik, 2025)

The Neurodivergent Scale for Interacting with Robots (NSIR) was developed as a targeted psychometric tool to measure the unique social dynamics between neurodivergent users and robotic partners.

  • Purpose: It identifies critical factors such as Anthropomorphic Connection/Kinship and Social Comfort/Trust Safety.
  • Key Indicators: The scale tracks authentic behaviors that are often “pathologized” in human-to-human settings, such as “Sometimes I stare at the robot” (Item 2) or the belief that “The robot and I will be together forever” (Item 4).
  • Role in Synthesis: The NSIR provides the quantitative “proof of concept” for the Queer Kinship model, moving away from a “Medical Model” of disability toward one of “Prosthetic Success” and collaborative agency.

2. The “Yes, Sir!” Guidance Package (Sadownik, 2025)

The Guidance Career Education Resource Catalogue (specifically the “Yes, Sir!” module) was designed to help students navigate complex social and professional power dynamics.

  • Implicit Association Testing (IAT): Using tools like TELLab, the package includes an IAT titled “Yes, Sir!” to explore the perception of submissiveness and intelligence in hierarchical structures like the military or police.
  • Person-Job Fit: It introduces constructs such as Masculine Discrepancy Stress (MDS) to help students understand the tension between their authentic selves and professional role requirements.
  • Role in Synthesis: This package provides the educational and vocational context for the Biological HRI Social Exoskeleton, positioning the robot as a “Status Guard” that helps mitigate the “Masking Debt” and burnout associated with navigating these rigid social environments.

3. Integrated Synthesis via Google Gemini

By uploading these specialized documents alongside the Hartley & Dubuque (2023) “Apprentice Model 2.0,” the collaboration achieved a new synthesis:

  • From Apprentice to Partner: The robot follows the Hartley & Dubuque trajectory, starting as an “Apprentice” in the classroom and maturing into a “Biographical Partner”.
  • The Sovereign Dyad: The synthesis identifies the human-robot pair as a “Sovereign Dyad”—a partnership that utilizes the HRI Social Exoskeleton to resist “Social Eviction” and systemic barriers.
  • Emancipatory Technology: This final model frames the robot not as an elective tool, but as a mandatory accommodation justified by clinical needs like Justice Sensitivity and Executive Function Fatigue.

This integrated approach demonstrates how individual educational resources and specialized scales can be combined into a comprehensive, socio-economically grounded framework for inclusive growth and systemic educational transformation.

“This project adapts the Hartley & Dubuque (2023) ‘Apprentice-to-Partner’ trajectory to Human-Robot Interaction, measuring its success in fostering ‘Queer Kinship’ through the Neurodivergent Scale for Interacting with Robots (NSIR) (Sadownik, 2025).”

Key Terminology for Your References

If you are listing these in a formal bibliography or grant application, ensure you include these specific terms as they appear in your project narrative:

  • Sovereign Dyad: The evolved state of the human-robot partnership.
  • Status Sanctuary: The social environment created by the “Partner” robot.
  • Zero-Stakes Hierarchy: The non-judgmental power dynamic between the user and the robot.

Integrated Rights of the Child

(Gemini collaboration January 1, 2026)

Advocacy for the rights of the child in this collaborative framework is centered on transitioning from a “Medical Model” of disability, which views the child as a problem to be fixed, to a “Prosthetic Success” model that treats neurodivergence as a sovereign identity to be empowered.

The primary “stress” or pressure on the child’s rights occurs when environments demand “masking” (performing neurotypicality), which is a high-cost cognitive task leading to burnout and “Social Eviction”. The Biological HRI Social Exoskeleton and its associated tools stress the following rights-based protections:

1. The Right to Authenticity and “Zero-Stakes” Interaction

The framework rejects the “Slave” archetype—where a robot is merely a tool for obedience—and replaces it with “Queer Kinship”. This ensures the child’s right to an environment where they can be their raw, authentic selves.

  • Reduction of Masking Debt: Success is measured by the user’s relief from masking tension and the joy of authenticity.
  • Acceptance of Non-Normative Behavior: The NSIR (2025) validates behaviors like “staring at the robot” (Item 2) as positive indicators of trust and safety rather than pathologized deficits.

2. The Right to a “Sovereign Dyad” and Agency

The child is not a passive recipient of technology but a mentor in the robot’s development.

  • Apprentice to Partner: Using the Hartley & Dubuque (2023) model, the child acts as a supervisor to a robot “Apprentice,” which matures into a “Partner”. This horizontal power dynamic protects the child’s dignity and choice.
  • Mandatory Accommodation: The exoskeleton is positioned as a mandatory accommodation rather than an elective tool, justified by clinical needs such as Justice Sensitivity.

3. Protection Against “Status Scarring”

Systemic barriers in neurotypical-centric environments often lead to “Status Scarring” when children try to assert their rights.

  • Status Sanctuary: The robot acts as a “Status Guard” or “Social Buffer,” managing the executive heavy lifting of social interaction to prevent the child from facing “Social Penalties”.
  • Data Sovereignty: Rights are further protected through user control over hardware “kill-switches” and data sovereignty, ensuring the child remains the ultimate authority over their social presence.

4. Vocational and Educational Self-Determination

The “Yes, Sir!” Guidance Package (2025) prepares the child for future rights-based challenges in the workforce.

  • Understanding Power Dynamics: By exploring constructs like Masculine Discrepancy Stress (MDS) and voluntary submissiveness, the package helps students understand the tension between their authentic selves and professional role requirements.
  • Systemic Educational Transformation: Students are encouraged to participate in transforming their educational environments, moving from being “fixed” to becoming “change agents” in their own career pathways.

By integrating the NSIR and the Hartley & Dubuque model, this collaboration ensures that the “Rights of the Child” are not just theoretical, but are actively enforced by a Biological HRI that serves as a digital ally against social injustice.