## 6 Results
### Qualitative Observations  
In addition to the post-experiment questionnaire, we conducted brief semi-structured interviews with the participants to gain deeper insight into their experiences. These interviews were carried out informally at the end of each session and were designed to let the participants speak freely, without prompting or directing their response. While these accounts are subjective and not generalizable, they offer valuable context regarding users' perceptions and emotional responses to the robot's behavior. All the comments were transcribed and categorized by two independent raters according to thematic similarities. A light thematic coding was employed to identify recurrent topics and sentiments, grouping the comments into five predefined categories: positive, negative, constructive suggestions, error reports, and neutral observations. This classification was based on both the tone and content of each statement. The subjective nature of these interviews introduces potential biases, including social desirability effects as participants might be inclined to offer favorable opinions when speaking directly to the experimenters. Nonetheless, many provided critical feedback or pointed out unexpected behaviors, suggesting a reasonable level of honesty. Among the forty participants interviewed, fourteen provided clearly positive feedback, especially within the RJAS Active condition (ten of them). The participants frequently described the robot as attentive and socially present. For instance, one user noted that \"the robot followed me too much, very attentive\", and even praised its design, stating it had a \"friendly appearance\" and that they liked \"the pink colour\" of the plush body (ID = 44, RJAS Active). These impressions align with the increased scores in engagement observed in the quantitative analysis. The participants also commented on how the robot reacted to attentional shifts. One participant stated that \"the robot noticed when I was distracted\", adding that they perceived its responses as deliberate and appropriate (ID = 51, RJAS Active). Similarly, another remarked that \"I realised the RJAS was working\", highlighting their awareness of the system's responsiveness (ID = 73, RJAS Active). Such experiences support the notion that the system contributed meaningfully to users' sense of being seen and understood. Several remarks highlighted the RJAS's role in shaping the interaction. One participant appreciated how \"the robot took into account that I was getting distracted\", reinforcing the impression of reciprocal attention (ID = 72, RJAS Active). Another participant shared that \"the robot paid attention to me\", even though some stimuli like the screen were more distracting (ID = 82, RJAS Active). These perceptions suggest the robot's attentional behavior added a layer of social awareness to the experience. While the majority of the comments in the RJAS Active condition were positive, some pointed out areas for improvement. For instance, one participant described the robot's behavior as \"passive-aggressive with distractions\" and noted that \"when the face was occluded, it failed\", although they also acknowledged that \"the RJAS worked well and aligned with distractions\" (ID = 47, RJAS Active). Another mentioned early difficulties in hand detection, saying that \"in one case, it did not detect a hand\", but still concluded that \"the RJAS worked great\" (ID = 49, RJAS Active). These constructive remarks suggest that, while the core attentional behavior was well received, its reliability in edge cases could be improved. In contrast, the participants in the RJAS Inactive condition generally reported a more neutral or disconnected experience. One participant commented that \"the robot is dispensable\" and felt that the robot \"barely turned around\" (ID = 55, RJAS Inactive). Another described it as \"doing its own thing\" and even remarked that \"the plush version was a bit creepy\" (ID = 60, RJAS Inactive).