Changes for page b. Test
Last modified by Demi Breen on 2023/04/09 15:10
From version 31.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/03/30 22:09
on 2023/03/30 22:09
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version 33.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/03/30 22:38
on 2023/03/30 22:38
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Content
-
... ... @@ -110,10 +110,14 @@ 110 110 111 111 = 3. Results = 112 112 113 - Onaverage, participantsonly rejected the robot's persuasion attempts 0.5 times. The participants rated the robot a 2/5 in terms of being scary.They gave a 4/5 for it making life more interesting and it being good to make use of the robot. Questions related to the participant's enjoyment and fascination of the system and the robotwere met with ratingsbetween 3.8 and 4.1. The question "I think the staff would like me using the robot" was rated a 4/5 on average.113 +=== Noteworthy answers === 114 114 115 - Firstly,theJarque-Bera test[2]wasused to checkfor normality.Whenthe answersfora questionweren'tnormallydistributed,theMann-WhitneyU-Test[3] was used.Fornormally distributedanswers,theT-Test[4] wasused.Thesetestsused thenullhypothesishatthereisno significantdifferencebetweenthe twogroups.When thecalculatedprobability value(p-value)islessthan0.05,wecan rejectthenullhypothesis andconcludethat thereisasignificantdifferencebetween the two groupsforthe answersto thatquestion.115 +On average, participants only rejected the robot's persuasion attempts 0.5 times. The participants rated the robot a 2/5 in terms of being scary. They gave a 4/5 for it making life more interesting and it being good to make use of the robot. Questions related to the participant's enjoyment and fascination with the system and the robot were met with ratings between 3.8 and 4.1. The question "I think the staff would like me using the robot" was rated a 4/5 on average. Finally, to the question of whether they would not have gone for a walk if the robot didn't ask them to, the average answer was 3.8/5. All these answers had a standard deviation of less than 1. 116 116 117 +=== ANOVA === 118 + 119 +Firstly, the Jarque-Bera test [2] was used to check for normality. When the answers to a question weren't normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-Test [3] was used. For normally distributed answers, the T-Test [4] was used. These tests used the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the two groups. When the calculated probability value (p-value) is less than 0.05, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference between the two groups for the answers to that question. 120 + 117 117 Even though the average rejections were higher for emotion-based (0,875) than for goal-based(0,125). This difference was not significant. 118 118 119 119 Furthermore, there was no significant difference in any of the questionnaire answers between the two groups. ... ... @@ -120,13 +120,14 @@ 120 120 121 121 [[This table>>doc:.p-values.WebHome]] shows the p-value per measure. 122 122 127 +=== Observations === 123 123 129 +General remarks made by participants evaluating the emotion-based system were only about the walking aspect of the robot, stating that the walking distance should be increased and the change in direction was quite sharp. Participants doing the goal-based evaluation commented on the badly performing speech recognition system and stated that it might be useful to start by asking how the participant feels. 130 + 124 124 When asked the reason that convinced the participant to join the robot on a walk, two out of the six participants that said yes eventually in the emotion-based system recited one of the persuasion subjects. For the goal-based system, this was three out of eight. 125 125 126 -When participants were standing too close to the robot, it wouldn't walk. This happened innumerous times, resulting in conversation without walking.133 +When participants were standing too close to the robot, it wouldn't walk. This happened numerous times, resulting in conversation without walking. 127 127 128 -General remarks made by participants evaluating the emotion-based system were only about the walking aspect of the robot, stating that the walking distance should be increased and the change in direction was quite sharp. Participants doing the goal-based evaluation commented on the badly performing speech recognition system and stated that it might be useful to start by asking how the participant feels. 129 - 130 130 Even though it was specified at the start of every session that the participant can say either yes or no to the robot's persuasion attempts, we noticed that some participants did not seem to grasp the fact that they could say no. At the end of their session, one participant stated that he was not persuaded by the robot at all, even though they said yes on the robot's first persuasion attempt. 131 131 \\Another participant, who said no to all persuasion attempts, stated afterwards that they "Just wanted to see what would happen if I said no all the time". This indicated that some participants already had a plan of how many times they would reject the robot before starting, and did not really listen to the persuasions made. 132 132 ... ... @@ -139,7 +139,9 @@ 139 139 140 140 = 5. Conclusions = 141 141 147 +Both systems were deemed enjoyable and fascinating, and little rejections were made to both types of persuasions. No significant difference was found in any of the measures between the two groups. 142 142 149 + 143 143 == References == 144 144 145 145 [1] Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. //Journal of Cognition//, //2//(1), 16. DOI: [[http:~~/~~/doi.org/10.5334/joc.72>>url:http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72]]