In the study of emotional bonds and social interaction certain notions play a fundamental role, changing according to disciplinary perspectives that are not always convergent. This is the case with concepts like empathy, seen as the emotional response that moves people to interaction with others due to the sharing of their emotions, or emotional contagion, a notion that modern ethology has taken from Darwinian positions and molded to mean the set of immediate and involuntary emotions that lead one to respond to another’s emotional expressions by imitating them. Perhaps it is the lack of cognitive mediation that characterizes humans’ innate tendency to recognize others’ emotional experiences and make them their own that makes such a special social relationship more or less attractive to those who study and design interaction. Consider the case of consumer goods. The chance that the user or buyer may experience “emotional tuning” with a product may play an important role in positioning it on the market. Obviously, what in an oversimplified way we call here “emotional tuning” is actually a much more complex concept, which Donald Norman and Andrew Ortony (in chapter 6 of this book) define on three levels: visceral, behavioral and reflective emotional response to a product. For years, the study of human-machine interaction has concentrated on the behavioral aspect, that of usability and “being in control” of the object using it. But the visceral and reflective levels have been almost entirely neglected, or at least not methodically analyzed. Even though more recently “experience design” (Shedroff, 2002) has aimed at the harmonious and elaborate design of the object and the context in which it used, this aim does not seem backed by a real overturning or enrichment of the more familiar approach to design whose focus is the typical user of the human-machine interaction. We believe it necessary to capitalize on the experience of this discipline, rather than confining it to a secondary role in modern design. The distinctive element of the design of experiences is apparently a deeper focus on the design of “environments” (cultural, relationship- and value-related, aesthetic, or physical) capable of hosting intellectually stimulating and emotionally involving activities and experiences. It involves not only interaction with objects, but also object-mediated interaction – mediated, that is, through their history and the cultural network in which the actors live and operate. This approach to the design of experiences is attractive, but the theoretical principles on which it is based, like the methods and tools needed to carry it out, are still deeply rooted in tradition. For those who study interaction and its emotional, cultural and aesthetic elements, the idea of human-machine interaction seems limited, as does the nature of the “objects of design.” If we shift the target of consumer object design (the perspective considered by Norman and Ortony) to other objects that are not merely static (a teapot) or reactive (a VCR) but autonomous and physical with decision-making abilities – proactive, dynamic objects capable of showing and catalysing emotions – we need a multidisciplinary approach, from the point of view of both interaction theory and interaction design, in order to understand the social dynamics that are established with machines, We are referring to interaction with robots, and to a special category of them: robots capable of mediating social interaction.