4. Results and discussion
4.2 Participants’ genders and interaction with robots
4.2.1 Boys’ and girls’ personal space in interacting with robots
(1) Boys’ and girls’ interaction with female robots
To investigate whether the participants’ gender will affect the personal space the participants’ keep from the robot (girl features). The study used the data from boy and
girl groups to run independent groups of T-test (each participant only interact with one of the robot) to see the difference.
Table 12 T-test of boys’ and girls’ personal space in interacting with female robots
Gender N Mean S.D. t
Boy 34 .72 .66 2.25*
Girl 42 .43 .45
*Result is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
The data showed that when the boy interacted with the robot (girl features), the average personal space was 0.72m, which was the level of personal space (distance<1.2m). On the other hand, the girl who interacted with the robot (girl
56
features) performed the personal space in 0.43m, which was in the range of intimate space (distance<0.45m), and was closer than the former one. It may be said that the
girl was more willing to interact with the robot (girl features) than the boy.
The results of the t-test were significant ( ). Hence, there
were differences existed in the personal space between the boy and girl groups. The personal space the girl kept when interacting with the robot (girl features) was significantly closer than the boy. This could also translate as the girl regarded the robot (girl features) as their close friends or family more than the boy according to
Hall (1966). The boy took the robot (girl features) as normal friends than the girl.
What’s more, there were different situations when looking at the personal space
that both participants interacted with Julia or Book Smile (girl features).
Table 13 T-test of boys’ and girls’ personal space in interacting with Julia
Gender N Mean S.D. t
Boy 16 .52 .63 1.75
Girl 20 .21 .41
When interacting with Julia, the girl tended to interact with the robot in closer distance than the boy (not significant). The girl interacted with Julia in intimate space
(distance<0.45m); the boy was in the personal space (distance<1.2m). This may related to “uncanny valley” (Mori, 1970) and the result that Schermerhorn, Scheutz,
and Crowell (2008) found out that male users perceived a robot as more human-like compared to female users. The boy may perceive Julia as too human-like robot that
57
stayed a farther distance than the girl.
Table 14 T-test of boys’ and girls’ personal space in interacting with Book Smile (girl features)
Gender N Mean S.D. t
Boy 18 .90 .65 1.58
Girl 22 .62 .40
When the participants interacted with Book Smile (girl features), the girl also stayed in closer distance with the robot (girl features) than the boy (not significant).
However, both boy and girl interacted with Book Smile (girl features) in the personal space (distance<1.2m) different with the situation that interacted with Julia.
(2) Boys’ and girls’ interaction with male robots
To investigate whether the participants’ gender will affect the personal space the participants’ keep from the robot (boy features). The study used the data from boy and
girl groups to run independent groups of T-test (each participant only interact with one of the robot) to see the difference.
Table 15 T-test of boys’ and girls’ personal space in interacting with male robots
Gender N Mean S.D. t
Boy 19 .49 .46 -0.33
Girl 30 .54 .51
The data showed that there were no significant differences between the boy and the girl’s personal space. The average personal space that the boy interacted with the robot (boy features) was 0.49m, which was the level of personal space (distance<1.2m). On the other hand, the girl who interacted with the robot (girl
58
features) performed the personal space in 0.54m, which was same in the range of personal space (distance<1.2m), and was farther than the former one. Both groups took the robot (boy features) as normal friends. And it may be said that the boy was more willing to interact with the robot (boy features) than the girl.
Comparing the results that the participants interacting with the robots with boy features and girl features, the boys were more close to the robot with boy features and the girls were more close to the robot with girl features. Just as what Eyssel et al.
(2012) said, participants perceived a same-gender robot more positive and psychologically close than the opposite-gender robot. What’s more, Schermerhorn, et al. (2008) found out that male users perceived a robot as more human-like compared to female users. This may be the reason that the average personal space that the boy stayed with the same-gender robot (0.49m) was farther than the girl with the same-gender robot (0.43m).
4.2.2 Boys’ and girls’ attitudes toward robots
(1) Boys’ and girls’ feelings for the interaction with robots
To investigate whether the participants’ gender will affect the attitude the participants’ had to the robot. The study used the questionnaire data from the boy and
girl groups to run independent groups of T-test (each participant only interact with one of the robot) to see the difference. Different groups of the participants’ comfort
59
attitude to the robot were shown in below.
Table 16 Boys’ and girls’ comfort for the interaction with robots
Gender N Mean S.D. t
with the robot in front of other people. (almost all of the scores’ M>4). Also, from the score can see that the girl had bettercomfort attitude to the robots than the boy (the girl’s scores were higher than the boy).
What’s more, although both gender were willing to make friend with a robot of
emotions, the results showed that the girl (M=4.71, S.D. =1.37) were more willing than the boy (M=4.12, S.D. =1.63). However, there was no significant difference between two groups of the participants in the comfort attitude part.
60
Table 17 Boys’ and girls’ feeling of the library task for the interaction with robots
Gender N Mean S.D. t
would be a bad influence on me.*Boy 34 4.65 1.45 -0.95
**Result is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)
In the feeling of the library task, the girl was more positive than the boy to get book recommending service from robots. What’s more, there is significant difference in the third question of the feeling of the task part. During the conversation, the girl (M=5.23, S.D. =1.54) thought that the robot won’t talk irrelevant things more than the boy (M=4.15, S.D. =1.23).
Table 18 Boys’ and girls’ negative attitude for the interaction with robots
Gender N Mean S.D. t
61
In the negative attitude, the first and the third questions had no significant difference. In the second question showed that the girl (M=4.98, S.D. =1.12) was
more positive than the boy (M=4.12, S.D. =1.86) on the conversation topic of the robots’ understanding.
(2) Boys’ and girls’ preference toward robots with different appearance
From the gender aspect to see the difference of the preference of the robot appearances, the results showed no differences in the human-like appearance, arms, and emotion parts.
Table 19 Boys’ and girls’ preference toward robots with different appearance
Group N Mean S.D. t
62
differences between the boy and the girl: the girl liked the robot with monitor (M=4.60, S.D. =1.94) and facial features (M=3.83, S.D. =1.82) more than the boy felt about the monitor (M=2.71, S.D. =2.02) and the facial features (M=2.71, S.D. =1.95).
According to Nomura et al. (2008), men who have negative and anxiety feeling to robots, will interact with robots in certain distance and don’t want to stay too close;
women who have same feeling as men won’t behave like what men do, but will not
show too much personal feeling to robots. The results showed that the boy had less positive attitude than the girl in all attitude parts. This may be the reason that the boy stayed in farther distance than the girl when interacting with the robot.
63