Changes for page b. Test

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -110,10 +110,9 @@
110	110
111	111	= 3. Results =
112	112
113		-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.
114		-
115	115	Firstly, the Jarque-Bera test [2] was used to check for normality. When the answers for 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.
116	116
	115	+
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.
...	...	@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
125	125
126	126	When participants were standing too close to the robot, it wouldn't walk. This happened in 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.
	127	+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 lacking speech recognition system and stated that it might be useful to start with asking how the participant feels.
129	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.
...	...	@@ -139,9 +139,7 @@
139	139
140	140	= 5. Conclusions =
141	141
142		-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.
143	143
144		-
145	145	== References ==
146	146
147	147	[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]]