Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Demi Breen on 2023/04/09 15:10
From version 33.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/03/30 22:38
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 32.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/03/30 22:11
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -110,14 +110,10 @@
110 110  
111 111  = 3. Results =
112 112  
113 -=== Noteworthy answers ===
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.
114 114  
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.
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  
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 -
121 121  Even though the average rejections were higher for emotion-based (0,875) than for goal-based(0,125). This difference was not significant.
122 122  
123 123  Furthermore, there was no significant difference in any of the questionnaire answers between the two groups.
... ... @@ -124,14 +124,13 @@
124 124  
125 125  [[This table>>doc:.p-values.WebHome]] shows the p-value per measure.
126 126  
127 -=== Observations ===
128 128  
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 -
131 131  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.
132 132  
133 -When participants were standing too close to the robot, it wouldn't walk. This happened numerous times, resulting in conversation without walking.
126 +When participants were standing too close to the robot, it wouldn't walk. This happened in numerous times, resulting in conversation without walking.
134 134  
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 +
135 135  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.
136 136  \\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.
137 137