## 3 Results and Discussion
To summarize, the answer to our research question regarding the UX goals that can be used for the design of cobots in industry is that seven feasible goals were mapped in the literature of the last eleven years. Such goals are (a) safety, (b) relationship, (c) usability, (d) inspiration, (e) flexibility, (f) efficiency, and (g) accomplishment. By this categorization, it was possible to observe that not all the goals mentioned before were addressed the same number of times. The number of articles in which they appear can be understood as a measure of their importance within the reviewed literature. This way, safety is ranked as the most relevant, being mentioned in five of the seven articles reviewed. It is followed by the UX goals of relationship and usability, which were both mentioned four time. Then come inspiration, flexibility, and efficiency, with three mentions each. Lastly, accomplishment was phrased in two of the selected articles, being the least relevant of this literature review. If we try to make the link between the seven UX goals and the distinction between pragmatic and hedonic goals [22], usability, efficiency, and flexibility would be do-goals because of relating to more instrumental aspects of HRC; whereas relationship, inspiration, and accomplishment would be understood as be-goals for concerning non-instrumental aspects. Safety could possibly be perceived as both a pragmatic and hedonic goal, once it comprises task-related aspects (e.g., assistance), but also aspects that relate to the individual psychological state (e.g., comfort). Thereafter, there seems to be a balance between these two types of attributes among the UX goals found in the reviewed studies. It is possible to aggregate the studies by research design, to understand which clusters elicited which of the seven UX goals. Beginning with the quantitative approach [38], the single study in which this design was used mentioned safety, usability, and efficiency goals. The studies composing the qualitative cluster [7; 39; 42], referred to the UX goals of safety, relationship, usability, flexibility, and efficiency. Finally, the cluster constituted by the mixed-method articles [16; 37; 41] included all the goals except for efficiency. In terms of the pragmatic or hedonic nature of the UX goals, it was observed that all the clusters added to the safety goal, that can be understood as both pragmatic and hedonic. They all also evoked other pragmatic goals. However, only the studies with qualitative and mixed-method designs contributed to the hedonic ones. It was also noted that the inspiration and accomplishment goals were only cited in papers from the mixed-method cluster. Interestingly, even though we included papers published since 2010 in our search, only papers after the year 2015 were considered eligible for the analysis, most of which were published from 2018 onwards. This might indicate that the use of UX goals as a guide for the designing process of collaborative robots started gaining more relevance only quite recently, especially in the context of industry 5.0, which focuses on the value of technology for the wellbeing of workers [14].