# Healthcare Students' Ethical Considerations of Care Robots in The Netherlands
## 3 Results  
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the dependent variables per Robot Type. To analyse our Research Questions, we ran a 3 (Robot Type: assisting, monitoring, companion) \(\times\) 2 (Education Level: higher vs. intermediate vocational) GLM MANOVA on the dependent measures Maleficence, Autonomy, Utility, and Acceptance. The Box M value was associated with a \(p\)-value of 0.04. Note, however, that the Box M test is highly sensitive and should be ignored unless \(N\geq 200\) and \(p\leq 0.001\)[34]. Our sample size was larger and our \(p\)-value was 0.04, so a MANOVA was appropriate to execute. Results of the multivariate analysis showed a significant main effect of Robot Type on the dependent variables (\(V\) = 0.26, \(F_{(8,698)}\) = 13.22, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.13). However, the main effect of Education Level was not significant (\(p\) = 0.111) and neither was the interaction between Education Level and Robot Type (\(F\) = 0.78). Thus, specifics of Education Level could not be tested further. The univariate between-subjects effects showed the main effect of Robot Type on participants' moral considerations (RQ1) and their evaluations of the different robot type's utility and acceptance (RQ2). Based on [PERSON]'s \(F\) test, the homogeneity of variance assumption was considered satisfactory with \(p\) > 0.05 for each subgroup. Robot Type had a significant effect on Maleficence (\(F_{(2,353)}\) = 31.86, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.15), on Utility (\(F_{(2,353)}\) = 3.75, \(p\) = 0.024, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.02), and on Acceptance (\(F_{(2,353)}\) = 12.58, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta_{p}{}^{2}\) = 0.07). The effect of Robot Type on Autonomy was not significant (\(p\) > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons (Tukey) showed that Acceptance was significantly higher for Companion than for Monitoring robots (\(\Delta M\) = 0.73, \(SE\) = 0.15, \(p\) < 0.001, 95% \(CI\) = 0.44-1.03) and for Assisting robots (\(\Delta M\) = 0.46, \(SE\) = 0.15, \(p\) = 0.002, 95% \(CI\) = 0.17-0.75). The difference between Monitoring and Assisting robots was not significant (\(p\) > 0.05). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Robot Type** & **DV** & \(n\) & _Mean_ & _SD_ \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Assisting} & Maleficence & 112 & 3.64 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 0.75 \\  & Autonomy & 112 & 3.69 & 1.15 \\  & Utility & 112 & 4.30 & 0.82 \\  & Acceptance & 112 & 4.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.85 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Monitoring} & Maleficence & 127 & 3.37 \({}^{\text{ce}}\) & 0.92 \\  & Autonomy & 127 & 3.50 & 1.15 \\  & Utility & 127 & 3.96 & 00.84 \\  & Acceptance & 127 & 3.64 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 00.99 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Companion} & Maleficence & 118 & 2.66 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 00.89 \\  & Autonomy & 118 & 3.32 & 00.98 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Utility & 118 & 4.26 & 00.76 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Acceptance & 118 & 4.35 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 00.97 \\ \hline \end{tabular} _Note._ Items were scored on six-point rating scales (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Equal superscripts indicate significant differences.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation (_SD_)) of the four dependent variables (DV) (\(N\) = 357). Regarding Maleficence, Assisting robots raised significantly higher scores than did Monitoring robots (\(\Delta M=0.40\), \(SE=0.14\), \(p=0.005\), \(95\%\)\(CI=0.12\)-0.67) and significantly higher scores than Companion robots (\(\Delta M=1.06\), \(SE=0.14\), \(p<0.001\), \(95\%\)\(CI=0.80\)-1.33). The difference between Monitoring and Companion robots also was significant, Monitoring robots being considered more Maleficent than Companion robots (\(\Delta M=0.67\), \(SE=0.14\), \(p<0.001\), \(95\%\)\(CI=0.40\)-0.93). Utility merely showed a trend, indicating that Monitoring robots seemed less useful than Companion or Assisting robots. To answer RQ3, we analysed the extent to which acceptance of a care robot was determined by maleficence and autonomy or by utility.