Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International
Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication
Kobe, Japan, Aug 31 - Sept 4, 2015

Effects of Interaction and Appearance
on Subjective Impression of Robots
Keisuke Nonomura1 and Kazunori Terada2 and Akira Ito3 and Seiji Yamada4 .
robot and the length of time the participant cooperated withthe robot [4].
The difference in the behavior that the participants expected from the appearance of the robot and the actual
behavior is called the adaptation gap. Komatu’s pioneering
study [5] on the adaptation gap showed that the adaptation
gap is correlated with the final evaluation of the robot. Komatu asked participants to collaborate on a treasure-hunting
task with a robot. The robot advised the participants on thelocation of the hidden treasure. Komatu compared the ability
to correctly advise, which is predicted from appearance andthe actual ability to provide correct information. As a result,when the ability to provide correct advice that is predictedfrom appearance was higher than the actual ability, a negative
adaptation gap occurred, which impacted the final evaluationof the impression given by the robot. Furthermore, a negative
adaptation gap did not encourage a participant to continue tointeract with the robot. Conversely, when the actual ability
was higher than the ability predicted from appearance, apositive adaptation gap occurred, which improved the final
evaluation of the impression of the robot. In addition, thepositive adaptation gap caused the participant to continue
to interact with the robot. However, although Komatu’s
study focused on appearance and predicted function fromappearance, the changes that emotional interaction give to theimpression of a robot having a clearly negative appearance
was not made a focus. In addition, the emotional relationshipbetween human and robot was not mentioned, because therobot’s behavior was intended to assist participants in goaloriented tasks. In this study, we conducted experiments
to investigate whether interaction could have the effect ofimproving a first negative impression of appearance. We used
an attractive robot for creating a first impression.

Abstract— Human-interactive robots are assessed according
to various factors, such as behavior, appearance, and quality ofinteraction. In the present study, we investigated the hypothesisthat impressions of an unattractive robot will be improved byemotional interaction with physical touch with the robot. An
experiment with human subjects confirmed that the evaluationsof the intimacy factor of unattractive robots were improved
after two minutes of physical and emotional interaction withsuch robots.

I. INTRODUCTION
The design of the appearance and behavior of the robotthat will interact with human beings poses an important
problem. Humans perceive information on visual appearance
quickly, and this leads to prejudice before interaction. Whenhumans evaluate each other, the attractiveness of one’s appearance is evaluated as a high ability. Crime perpetrated
on an individual is reduced if attractiveness of appearance
is higher, even in cases where a person must be evaluated
without reference to their appearance, such as in judging acrime [1]. Additionally, the appearance of a robot is a clue
to the function of the robot. The appearance of animal robots
such as PARO (a seal-like robot) and AIBO (a dog-likerobot) are indicators that its behavior will be friendly, likethe animals they resemble. In addition, predicted interactions
are changed by the degree of similarity of the appearance toan animal or human. For example, vertically linked spheres
are regarded as Keepon’s (a small robot designed to studysocial development) head and body. The head of Keepon has
small eyes and mouth for communication [2]. Telenoid is aneutral design that can look like a child, man, or woman, andhas been designed so that it is gradually simplified toward
the periphery and around the eye, which is important forinteraction [3].
On the other hand, behavior is also perceived from visual
information, as much as appearance is, but it requires timeto understand a robot’s behavior. However, behavior andinteractions change the evaluation of a robot. For example,
J. Goetz has shown that when evaluating robot interaction,
contents of the interaction changed the impressions of the

II. PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD
A. Participants
The experiment was targeted at 42 males; all of whomwere Gifu University students, aged 21.48 years old on average (SD = 2.18). The experiment was conducted using a twofactor mixed design for appearance (covered (Fig.1)/naked(Fig.2), among participants) and the interaction factor (Before/After, per participant). We divided 21 participants inthe experiment using a good-looking robot (Covered). The
remaining 21 participants were divided using an unattractive
robot (Naked).

1 Keisuke

Gifu

Nonomura is with Graduate School of Engineering,
University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu City 501-1193, JAPANnono@elf.info.gifu-u.ac.jp
2 Kazunori
Terada is with the Faculty of Engineering,
Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu City 501-1193, JAPAN

terada@elf.info.gifu-u.ac.jp
3 Akira Ito is with Faculty of Engineering, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido,
Gifu City 501-1193, JAPAN ai@elf.info.gifu-u.ac.jp
4 Seiji Yamada is with National Institute of Informatics, SOKENDAI, 21-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8430, JAPAN, Tokyo Institute ofTechnology seiji@nii.ac.jp

978-1-4673-6703-5/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE95•Fig. 1.

The Robot Used by Covered-level

Fig. 2.

The Robot Used by Naked-level

The naked Robot
Fig.2 shows the naked robot. This robot is the same as
the covered robot, but has had its cover removed, as wellas the L-shaped parts on the head. The functionality ofthis robot is same as that of the covered robot’s.
• Robot Behavior
The robot has three levels of behavioral openness
that alter depending on number of times it is stroked by
the participants. When the robot is stroked between zeroand five times, the robot watches the participants. Whenthe number of times stroked is more than six but lessthan nine, the robot is hesitant in moving toward theparticipants. When the stroked number of times is morethan ten times, the robot gets attached to participant.
The decision as to whether the robot was stroked
is made as follows. First, the participant is asked to
stroke an infrared sensor that is installed in the top
portion of the robot. When infrared sensor perceives theparticipant’s hand, an infrared sensor sends a signal tothe microcomputer. The microcomputer thus receives asignal. This constitutes ”stroking” and decides whether
the robot has been stroked. There are three stages ofrobot behavior, which represents the robot’s emotion
through the following actions. The behavior that represents vigilance is when the light of the eyes turn
red, and the robot retreats about 210mm. The behavior
that represents hesitation is when the light of the eyes
turns yellow, and the robot retreats about 150mm. The
behavior that represents joy is when the light of theeyes turn green, and it proceeds through an arc angle ofabout 120 degrees, with a left and right radius of 65mm
and makes a clockwise rotation of a half in place.

B. Experimental Equipment
We defined the robot with an exterior (Fig.1) as an
attractive robot, and we defined the robot with no exterior(Fig.2) an unattractive robot. The reasons for defining therobot with an exterior as attractive were that the presence ofa head mimicking an animal’s face, with mouth, eyes, andears, and its easy manipulability provided by the cover on the
body. The reasons for defining the robot with no exterior as
unattractive were that its rickety appearance gives a negative
impression that it is built negligently, due to the exposed
circuits and sensors and its unkept wiring fixed by tape.
•

TABLE IB EFORE Q UESTIONNAIRES

NumberContent
1
Familiarity
2
Familiar
3
Friendliness4
Appearance is good5
Emotionality
6
Look like creature
7
Loveliness8
Smartness
9
Beauty10
Originality
11
Handiness
12
Glitz
13
Poorness
14
Fascination
15
Grace
16
Solemn17
Sophistication
18
Robustness
19
Brittleness
20
Hugeness
21
Do you want to play with robot?

The covered Robot
Fig.1 shows the covered robot. The following are thedimensions of the robot: height 150mm, width128mm,
length240mm. The exterior was designed using SOLIDWORKS 2013, and it was made from laminated pace
0.2 mm using Replicator 2X and ABS resin. An infrared
sensor makes it possible to determine whether a participant touches or strokes a robot. The robot equippedwith two full color LEDs. A built-in microcomputer(AVR168P-20PU) monitors the LEDs and is able tocontrol the robot’s behavior.
96

TABLE IIA FTER Q UESTIONNAIRES

Numberof the questionnaire taken after demand a description fromthe participants.
We refer to the following literature to measure reliance,
affinity, and animal-like through questionnaire. Refer to [6]for the inspiration for items such as questions number five,six, and 7, which measure the presence of emotion andcreature. Refer to [7] for items such as questions number 11
and 21, which measure anxiety and expectation, respectively.

Content

The question contents to question number 1-20 are
same as a questionnaire before an experiment.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Behavior is peculiar
Behavior is smooth
Behavior is slow
The tone when a robot moves, is noisy.
Behavior is cute
Eye color of robot has changed
There is meaning in the color of the
eyes

28

(If you chose the 5-7 in the question 27
Please answer)Do you think that there
is any meaning in the color of the eyes

29

There is meaning in behavior

30(If you chose the 5-7 in the question 29
Please answer)Do you think that there
is any meaning in the behavior

31
32

Time to interaction with robot is short
Would you like to interaction with arobot more?

33

Do you have knowledge about the
robot making?

III. RESULTTABLE IIIR ESULT OF ONLY THE Q UESTIONNAIRE A FTER AN E XPERIMENT

Covered level
Number M SD
21
5.05 1.13
22
4.10 1.38
23
3.43 1.05
24
4.62 1.50
25
3.67 1.21
26
6.33 0.99
27
5.43 1.09
29
5.29 1.08
31
3.43 1.18
32
4.24 1.31
33
3.14 1.78

Naked level
M SD
4.76 1.38
4.43 1.13
3.24 1.19
4.24 1.51
3.67 1.21
5.76 1.23
5.19 1.10
4.62 1.09
4.00 0.98
4.14 1.21
3.38 1.68

A. Manipulation Check
We analyzed the distinction among the answers to questions number three, ”Friendliness,” four, ”Appearance isgood,” 11, ”Handiness,” 17, ”Sophistication,” 18, ”Robustness,” and 19, ”Brittleness” between the covered and naked
robots using a one-way ANOVA for verifying that the presence of the exterior increases relative merits of appearance.
The mean of the covered robot’s score for ”Friendliness” is
4.67, whereas that for the naked robot is 2.90. A significant
difference was observed (F(1, 40) = 13.51, p < 0.01). The
mean of the covered score for ”Appearance is good” is4.33, and that for the naked is 2.76. A significant difference
was observed (F(1, 40) = 14.72, p < 0.01). The mean of thecovered score for ”Handiness” is 4.14, the naked score is
3.71. A significant difference was not observed (F(1, 40) =0.89, p = 0.35). The mean of the covered robot’s score for”Sophistication” is 4.33, the naked robot’s score is 3.05.
A significant difference was observed (F(1, 40) = 8.11, p <0.01). The mean of the covered robot’s score for ”Robustness” is 5.10 and that of the naked robot’s score is 2.76. A
significant difference was observed (F(1, 40) = 30.24, p <0.01). The mean of the covered score for ”Brittleness” is 5.24
and that of the naked robot is 5.52. A significant difference
was observed (F(1, 40) = 0.53, p = 0.47).

C. Experiment Environment
The experiment was conducted on a desk with a height of
695mm, a depth of 890mm, and a length of 890mm.
D. Experimental Procedure
STEP1：Before Questionnaires
Participant responds to a questionnaire on his impressionof robot’s appearance preceding the interaction.
STEP2：Interaction with Robot(interaction session)
Participant interacts with robot. Participant strokes therobot and observes the robot for two minutes.
STEP3：After Questionnaires
Participant responds to a questionnaire on his impressionof the robot after the interaction.
E. Measuring Method
We measured the impression of the robots using beforeand-after questionnaires. The questionnaires given before
consist of 21 items. The questionnaires given after consist of
33 items, including 20 items from the questionnaires given
before. The method of evaluation of the questionnaires’ contents was performed using seven-point Likert scales to assess
the impressions of the robots. The evaluations consisted ofseven-point Likert scale questions (1 = ”definitely no” to 7
= ”definitely yes”). Table I shows the questionnaire taken
before the interaction, and table II shows the questionnairetaken after the interaction. Only questions number 28 and 30

B. Result of Factor Analysis
We found four extracted factors by factor analysis of thequestionnaire results. We defined these as the Intimacy factor,
the Beauty factor, the Simplicity factor and the Robustness
factor. Table IV shows the result of factor analysis. In
addition, we analyzed the factor scores of the Intimacy factor,
97

TABLE IV
R ESULT OF FACTOR ANALYSIS

1
0.8

*

**

0.6

Extracted basic factor
Content
Intimacy Beauty Simplicity Robustness
Friendliness .85
.07
-.02
.18
Familiarity
.84
.19
-.24
.14
Appearance
.73
.10
-.04
-.08
is good
Familiar.69-.02 .05.00
Loveliness
.62
.15
.06
.10
Look like
.62
.12
-.17
.14
creature
Fascination
.61
.33
-.07
.20
Emotionality .41
.23
-.18
.10
Originality
.31
.30
.03
.16
BeautyBeauty
.15
.99
-.03
-.04
Grace
.18
.59
.00
.06
Smartness
.03
.59
.10
.02
Solemn
.07
.40
-.11
.18
Simplicity Handiness
.27
.02
.94
.20
Glitz
-.11
.21
.05
.17
Poorness
-.23
.02
.25
.07
Brittleness-.10-.13 .04-.00
Hugeness-.08-.00 .13
-.00
.39
.10
.88
Robustness Sophistication .25
Robustness.26-.04 .15.30
FactorIntimacy

0.4
0.2

**
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6

Covered
−0.8

Naked
−1

After

BeforeFig. 3.

Intimacy Factor

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6

Covered
−0.8

Naked

the Beauty factor, the Simplicity factor and the Robustness
factor using a two-way ANOVA. Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 showthese results.

−1

After

BeforeFig. 4.

Beauty Factor

1

C. Intimacy Factor*

0.8

We analyzed the factor score of Intimacy using a twoway ANOVA. Fig. 3 shows the result of the ANOVA. Theinteraction of the Appearance with the Interaction factor
revealed significant difference (F(1, 40) = 6.62, p < 0.05).
Then, we used a simple main effect test for recording thesimple main effect.
A result of the simple main effect test of the Appearance
factor in each level of the Interaction factor, significant differences were observed in the before (F(1, 54) = 17.29, p <0.01) and after phase (F(1, 54) = 4.49, p < 0.05). A simple
main effect of Interaction factor was observed for the naked
level F(1, 54) = 14.82, p < 0.01).

0.6

**
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6

Covered
−0.8

Naked
−1

BeforeAfter

Fig. 5.

Simplicity

D. Beauty Factor

1

*

0.8

We analyzed the Beauty factor using a two-way ANOVA.
Fig. 4 shows the result of ANOVA. Interaction of the
Appearance factor with the Interaction factor did not reveal
a significant difference (F(1, 40) = 0.05, p = 0.82).
The main effects of the Appearance factor (F(1, 40) =0.37, p = 0.55) and the Interaction factor (F(1, 40) =0.37, p = 0.55) did not reveal a significant difference.

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6

E. Simplicity Factor

Covered−0.8

We analyzed the factor score of Simplicity using a twoway ANOVA. Fig. 5 shows the result of the ANOVA.
Interaction of the Appearance factor with the Interaction
factor did not reveal a significant difference ((F(1, 40) =0.09, p = 0.77).

Naked
−1

BeforeFig. 6.

After

Robustness Factor

98

The main effect of the Interaction factor was revealed asa significant difference (F(1, 40) = 15.84, p = 0.01). Using
Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test, we found significant differences
between the covered and naked versions, which revealed asignificant difference between the beforecovered and beforenaked in the Simplicity factor.

(SD = 1.66). A significant difference was not observed inboth levels.
K. The Effect of Impression of the Robot’s Motion by the
Difference Between the Quality of Appearance
Table III shows mean and standard deviation of items
that are only in the after questionnaires. We analyzed thescores of these items using a one-way ANOVA. However, asignificant difference was not observed in any items.

F. Robustness Factor
We analyzed the factor score of Robustness using a twoway ANOVA. Fig. 6 shows the result of the ANOVA. Theinteraction of the Appearance factor with the Interaction
factor did not reveal a significant difference (F(1, 40) =2.61, p = 0.11).
The main effects of the Appearance factor (F(1, 40) =1.18, p = 0.28) and the Interaction factor (F(1, 40) =1.93, p = 0.17) did not reveal a significant difference.

IV. DISUCUSSION
A. Manipulation Check
We verified the presence of the exterior relative meritsof the appearance. The robot with an exterior was rated
excellently in question number three ”Friendliness,” four”Appearance is good,” 17 ”Sophistication,” and 18 ”Robustness,” compared to the robot that has no exterior. However,
the robot having an exterior and the robot having no exteriorregardless of the presence or absence of exterior for 11”Handiness” and 19 ”Brittleness” had the same evaluation.
The ratings for ”Appearance is good” and ”Sophistication”
were direct results on the appearance. These evaluations of
the attractive robot were higher than those of the unattractive
robot. With respect to ”Handiness” and ”Brittleness,” theseconcerned operability and functionality, rather than appearance directly. For this reason, we concluded that initiallythe expected effect was obtained by two levels that werepreviously prepared. In addition, the mean of the covered
robot was higher than the mean of the naked robot for someitems. Significant levels were observed not only for the above
items but also for one, ”Familiarity,” five, ”Emotionality,” six,
”Look like creature,” seven, ”Loveliness,” 10, ”Originality.”
We referred to Iwamura’s study [8] for considering thisresult. This study showed that when shopping with a robot,
the evaluation of a humanoid robot that is able to talkis higher than that of a cart robot that is able talk. The
results of Iwamura’s study and this study were similar inthat the evaluation of a robot is higher when the contents of
the interaction and appearance are matched. From this, thepresence of a robot that has an exterior whose head mimics
that of an animal matches the contents of interaction of thisstudy. As a result, there is a possibility that the impressionof the robot that has an exterior was better.

G. The Effects of Interaction with the Appearance Impression
We examined the effects of the emotional interaction
between human and robot that influenced the impression of
the robot’s appearance. Interaction was observed only for
the Intimacy factor (F(1, 40) = 6.62, p < 0.05). This result
confirmed that emotional interaction improves the Intimacy
factor of an unattractive robot.
H. The Effects of only Appearance or Interaction
Significant interactions were observed only for the Intimacy factor. The Simplicity factor did not have significant
interaction, but the main effect of interaction was observed(F(1, 40) = 15.84, p < 0.01).
I. Simple Main EffectWe used a simple main effect test for each level of theInteraction factor for observing the simple main effect of
the Appearance factor. Simple main effects were observed
for the period before (F(1, 54) = 17.29, p < 0.01) and after (F(1, 54) = 4.49, p < 0.05) interaction for the Intimacy
factor.
We used a simple main effect test for each level of the
Appearance factor for observing the simple main effect of theInteraction factor. Simple main effects were observed for thecovered robot in the Simplicity factor (F(1, 40) = 9.15, p <0.01) and the Robustness factor (F(1, 40) = 4.51, p < 0.05),
naked level of the Intimacy factor(F(1, 40) = 14.82, p <0.01) and the Simplicity factor (F(1, 40) = 6.78, p < 0.05).
J. The Effect of The Willingness to Interaction with a Robot
by Difference Between the Quality of Appearance

B. Intimacy Factor

We analyzed score of the item ”Do you want to play withrobot?” described only in Before-Questionnaires by a oneway ANOVA. Mean of Covered-level is 5.00(SD = 1.27),
mean of naked level is 4.52(SD = 1.66). significant difference
was not observed in both level.
Using a one-way ANOVA, we analyzed the score of theitem ”Do you want to play with the robot?” included onlyin the before questionnaires. The mean of the covered levelis 5.00 (SD = 1.27), the mean of the naked level is 4.52

Emotional interaction improved the evaluation of theunattractive robot’s Intimacy factor. As to why it has sucha negative result, we propose that a positive adaptation
gap occurred because unattractive robots that perform a
gradual attachment received a higher evaluation than thatwhich participants predicted from appearance. This positive
adaptation gap improved the evaluation of the Intimacy factorof the unattractive robot.
99

C. Beauty Factor

V. CONCLUSION

The main effects of the Interaction factor and the Appearance factor were not observed for the Beauty factor.
As to why it has produced such a result, the Appearanceof the covered robot is nearly rectangular. The Appearance
gave the impression of simplicity rather than beauty to theparticipants. For this reason, a significant difference was notobserved in the before questionnaires. Then, the emotional
interaction did not change the appearance of the robot. So
the emotional interaction did not generate an adaptation gap.
Therefore, we think that factor score did not change.
D. Simplicity Factor
The factor score of the after questionnaires for the naked
and covered robots decreased. The main effect of Interaction
was observed in the Simplicity factor. As to why such a result
is produced, participants deemed that an attractive robot is
simple. However, the actual behavior of the attractive robot
was different from what the participants had expected. Thus,a negative adaptation gap occurred. The negative adaptation
gap lowered the factor score of the attractive robot. Participants also predicted that the behavior of the unattractive robot
would be bad. However, the actual behavior was different
from what participants expected. Thus, a negative adaptation
gap occurred. The negative adaptation gap lowered the factor
score for the unattractive robot.
E. Robustness Factor
A simple main effect is observed in the covered robot
for the Robustness factor. In our estimation, participants
deemed that an expensive-looking robot would be simple.
An attractive robot is evaluated higher than an unattractive
one in the before questionnaires on the Robustness factor.
However, the function of the robot was determined throughinteraction with the robot. That function is inferior than thefunction predicted. As a result, a negative adaptation gap
occurred. The negative adaptation gap made the covered andnaked robots equal.
F. The Influence of the Will to Interaction with Robot byDifference Between the Quality of Appearance
We determined the willingness to interact with the robot
using question number 21, ”Do you want to play with arobot?” appearing in the before questionnaire. A significant
difference was not observed in the results of analysis between the covered and naked robots. As a result, concerningquestion number 21, the relative merits of appearance do notaffect the willingness to interact with a robot.

This study investigated whether emotional interaction witha robot would improve a negative impression of its appearance. As a result, the Intimacy factor of an unattractive robot
is likely to improve, to reach that of a good looking robot,
through emotional interaction with the robot. We estimatethat what we have learned from this research about how
interaction with a robot can change the impression of arobot’s appearance is useful for designing robots that interact
with humans. In future, we will conduct experiment thatuses non-emotional interaction such as participants observed
stopping robot for researching whether participants wereattached to unattractive robot or used to unattractive robot.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study has been supported by MEXT KAKENHI
No.26118005 and 25119502.
R EFERENCES[1] EFRAN, M. G.: The Effect of Physical Appearance on the Judgmentof Guilt, Interpersonal Attraction, and Severity of Recommended Punishment in a simulated Jury Task, JOURANAL OF RESEARCH INPERSONALTY, p. pp45 54 (1974).
[2] Kozima, H., Michalowski, M. P. and Nakagawa, C.: Keepon A Playful
Robot for Research, Therapy, and Entertainment, International Journalof Social Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3–18 (online), 10.1007/s12369008-0009-8 (2008).
[3] Yamazaki, R., Nishio, S., Ogawa, K., Ishiguro, H., Matsumura, K.,
Koda, K. and Fujinami, T.: How Does Telenoid Affect the Communication Between Children in Classroom Setting?, CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI
EA ’12, New York, NY, USA, ACM, pp. 351–366 (online),
10.1145/2212776.2212814 (2012).
[4] Goetz, J., Kiesler, S., Powers, A., of Psychology, D., Computer,
H., Computer, H., of California, U. and Institute, I. I. I.: Matching
Robot Appearance and Behavior to Tasks to Improve Human-Robot
Cooperation, IEEE (2003).
[5] Komatsu, T., Kurosawa, R. and Yamada, S.: How Does the Difference
Between Users Expectations and Perceptions About a Robotic Agent
Affect Their Behavior?，International Journal of Social Robotics,
Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 109–116（オンライン），10.1007/s12369-011-0122-y(2011).
[6] Kamide, H., Eyssel, F. and Arai, T.: Psychological Anthropomorphismof Robots Measuring Mind Perception and Humanity in JapaneseContext, LNAI, Vol. 8239, Springer, p. 199208 (2013).
[7] Nomura, T., Kanda, T. and Suzuki, T.: Experimental investigation
into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human-robot
interaction, AI & SOCIETY, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 138–150 (online),
10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7 (2005).
[8] Iwamura, Y., Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H. and Hagita, N.:
Do Elderly People Prefer a Conversational Humanoid as a Shopping
Assistant Partner in Supermarkets? (2011).

G. The Influence of Impression of Robot’s Motion by Difference Between the Quality of Appearance
We checked the impression of robot’s behavior using questions number 21-32 on the after questionnaires. A significant
difference was not observed in the analysis’ results between
the covered and naked robots. As a result, the relative meritsof appearance do not affect the impression of the robot’s
behavior.
100