# Self-Disclosure to an IoT Conversational Agent: Effects of Space and User Context on Users'
## 3 Experiment 1: Interaction Between One User and an IoT-CA
### Results
#### 3.2.2 Test of Hypotheses  
H1: Information type in self-disclosure. The data for self-disclosure (six types of personal information) were normally distributed; therefore, a three-way mixed ANOVA (function type \(\times\) space \(\times\) information type) was used to analyze the self-disclosure of users. There was no main effect of the function type on self-disclosure (\(p\) = 0.334). This indicates that our experimental manipulation was successful, neither causing strong reactions from participants nor affecting their self-disclosed information types. There was no interaction effect on the function type and information type. The main effect of the information type (i.e., attitudes and opinions, tastes and interests, work, money, personality, and body) was significant (F(5, 165) = 40.85, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.28). This finding suggests that participants varied the amount of self-disclosure to an IoT-CA according to the information type. The results of post-hoc tests are listed in descending order of the means in Table 2. Participants were most willing to disclose tastes and interest information and least willing to disclose money information (marginally significantly less than personality information). Body information was not information that participants were least willing to disclose to IoT-CAs, whereas participants were more willing to disclose body information than attitudes and opinions, personality and money information. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported in the one-user context. Moreover, the information types that a single participant disclosed to an IoT-CA can be classified into three levels according to their self-disclosure willingness: high self-disclosure (tastes and interests), medium self-disclosure (work, body, and attitudes and opinions), and low self-disclosure (personality and money). Participants had fewer privacy concerns when their willingness to self-disclose was higher. H2: Effects of the space on self-disclosure. A three-way mixed ANOVA showed that the main effect of the space on self-disclosure was significant (F(1, 33) = 65.56, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.245). There was no interaction effect for the space and information type. Participants in the living space disclosed more information than in the workspace (living space: mean = 5.06 (SD = 1.04); workspace: mean = 3.52 (SD = 1.17)). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported in the one-user context. More specifically, participants in the living space disclosed 44% more information than in the workspace, i.e.,  
\[\text{percentage}=\frac{\left|\text{differences in information in the two spaces}\right|}{\text{information in the workspace}}.\]  
H3: Mediated effect of self-awareness on self-disclosure. The data of private and public self-awareness in the two spaces were normally distributed. The results of t-tests showed that \begin{table}
**TA and IN** & & & & & & \\
**Work** & \textless{}0.001 *** & & & & & \\
**Body** & \textless{}0.001 *** & 0.183 & & & & \\
**AT and OP** & \textless{}0.001 *** & 0.023 & 0.173 & & & \\
**Personality** & \textless{}0.001 *** & \textless{}0.001 *** & \textless{}0.001 *** & 0.009 ** & & \\
**Money** & \textless{}0.001 *** & \textless{}0.001 *** & \textless{}0.001 *** & \textless{}0.001 *** & 0.062 & \\ \hline Mean & 6.00 & 4.53 & 4.31 & 4.09 & 3.64 & 3.36 \\ \hline SD & 1.06 & 1.69 & 1.61 & 1.62 & 1.67 & 1.95 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p\) < 0.05, *** \(p\) < 0.01, *** \(p\) < 0.001.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Summary of post-hoc tests for self-disclosure in Experiment 1. SFD: self-disclosure, TA and IN: tastes and interests, AT and OP: attitudes and opinions. participants in the workspace and living space had the same level of private self-awareness (living space: mean = 5.19, SD = 1.10; workspace: mean = 4.96, SD = 1.25, \(p\) = 0.120) and public self-awareness (living space: mean = 2.95, SD = 1.44; workspace: mean = 2.92, SD = 1.28, \(p\) = 0.847).