Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Clemente van der Aa on 2023/04/08 17:42
From version 8.1
edited by Mohamed Elsayed
on 2023/03/28 17:39
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 15.1
edited by Rick Dekker
on 2023/04/05 12:33
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.MohamedElsayed
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Content
... ... @@ -20,9 +20,29 @@
20 20  
21 21  **Measures:**
22 22  
23 -Trustworthiness, the effect on the mood of the participant, and the functionalities were measured using a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of sub-questions related to these aspects and used the Likert Scale to capture the level of agreement and feelings towards these aspects.
23 +A trust score, as described in Gutalli et al. (2019) //(Design, development and evaluation of a human-computer trust scale)//, the effect on the mood of the participant was measured using a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of sub-questions related to these aspects and used a Likert Scale to capture the level of agreement and feelings towards these aspects.
24 24  
25 25  
26 +//Trust Score~://
27 +
28 +[[image:attach:Screenshot.png]]
29 +
30 +According to Gulati et al. (2019), the trust people have in robots consist of 4 different factors:
31 +
32 +//1) The Percieved Risk of the Robot~:// This indicates how cautious people feel they have to be around the robot, or how risky they feel it is to interact with the robot. This score inverted shows how much people trust a robot.
33 +
34 +//2) The Benevolence of the Robot: //This score shows how much people think a robot will act in their best interests.
35 +
36 +//3) The Competence of the Robot: //This shows how well people think the robot is fit for its job.
37 +
38 +//4) The Reciprocity of the Robot: //The Reciprocity score indicates how much people feel a connection with the robot.
39 +
40 +
41 +//Mood Score~://
42 +
43 +Our Mood Score is derived from the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire //(Hills et al. ,The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being, (2002))//. The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire correlates with personality variables like satisfaction with life, self-esteem and happiness. This score can be used to measure the effect of the interaction with Dogg0 on people's happiness.
44 +
45 +
26 26  **Procedure:**
27 27  
28 28  The procedure was conducted as follows:
... ... @@ -29,21 +29,25 @@
29 29  
30 30  1. Participants were welcomed and informed about the purpose of the study.
31 31  1. Participants signed a consent form to indicate their willingness to participate and allow researchers to analyze the data gathered from the experiment.
32 -1. Participants completed the first questionnaire, which assessed their emotional state.
33 33  1. Participants interacted with the robot.
34 -1. Participants completed the second questionnaire.
35 -1. Researchers conducted a short interview during downtime, using prepared questions.
53 +1. Participants completed a questionnaire that assesed their mood and their trust in Dogg0.
36 36  
37 37  **Materials:**
38 38  
39 -Two main materials were used in this study. First, a consent form was used to ensure that participants were willing to participate, and their privacy was protected. Second, the Dogg0 robot was used to evaluate its effectiveness. The robot was programmed using MiroCloud and had the same behavior for every participant.
57 +Two main materials were used in this study. First, a consent form was used to ensure that participants were willing to participate, and their privacy was protected. Second participants were exposed to the Miro robot, that did a pre-programmed routine. The robot was programmed using MiroCloud and had the same behavior for every participant.
40 40  
41 41  
60 += 3. Results =
42 42  
62 +The experiment was conducted on 10 participants. It yielded the following results:
43 43  
44 -= 3. Results =
45 45  
65 +[[image:https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/UHfBKbcuV-N5vBik0NXHqTlBCKb9mKQNTPPwkPb5orJ4hnmNIeFy9Al44VzeEc2CeMC8ueLZVP5Qk3hjTm8w9XvuMIuebBi7wZDfPmMsHjjaPMEXZB5gFrwv6ZGquMFNYjaK6ai2IRQJ-44=s2048||height="364px;" width="638px;"]]
46 46  
67 +The above figure shows the trust participants had in Dogg0. The height of the bar denoted the mean score for the experiment. The error bars show the standard deviation of the score. One the one hand participants view Dogg0 as very competent (3.4), meaning they think it does exactly what it's meant to do. On the other hand they do think it's risky to interact with Dogg0. Closer inspection of the results reveals that participants mostly felt like they had to be cautious around Dogg0, as this factor scored a mean of 3.3, while other factors were all rated low risk.
68 +
69 +[[image:afbeelding.png]]
70 +
47 47  = 4. Discussion =
48 48  
49 49  
Screenshot (49).png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +34.1 KB
Content
Screenshot.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +34.1 KB
Content
afbeelding.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14.1 KB
Content