## 4 Results
### Recognition of [PERSON]'s Emotions  
A large proportion (81.5%) of the children reported that it was easy to guess [PERSON]'s emotions (M = 4.19; SD = 1.15). The children in the congruent group rated it easier to guess [PERSON]'s emotions (M = 4.60, SD = 0.63); however, there was no significant difference compared to the incongruent group (M = 3.67, SD = 1.44; \(p>0.05\)). The children were able to recognize, on average, just under two emotions displayed by [PERSON] (M = 1.96 (SD = 1.09). The emotions happiness and sadness were the most frequently correctly chosen emotions (n = 18, 66.7% for both emotions), followed by the emotion anger (n = 17, 63.0%).  
In the regression analysis conducted to predict correct emotion recognition in NAO, only the ability to recognize emotions in the video (\(\beta\) = 0.720, \(p<0.001\)) and sex (\(\beta\) = 0.421, \(p\) = 0.01) were found to be significant predictors (see Table 5 for a summary of regression results), indicating that girls were more likely to guess [PERSON]'s emotion correctly. The level of empathy and hearing level did not significantly predict the recognized emotions in NAO without sounds.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt}} \hline \hline  & **Min** & **Max** & \begin{tabular}{c} **M** \\ **(SD)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **To a Minor** \\ **Extent** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **To Some Extent** \\ **Extent** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline The robot perceived the content of the movie clip correctly & 1 & 5 & 3.83 (1.40) & 25.0\% & 0\% & 75.0\% \\ \hline It was easy to understand which emotion was expressed by the robot & 1 & 5 & 3.67 (1.44) & 16.7\% & 16.7\% & 66.6\% \\ \hline It was easy to understand what the robot was thinking about & 1 & 5 & 3.00 (1.41) & 41.6\% & 16.7\% & 41.7\% \\ \hline The robot has a personality & 1 & 5 & 3.00 (1.86) & 41.7\% & 8.3\% & 50.0\% \\ \hline The robot’s behavior drew my attention & 1 & 5 & 4.42 (1.65) & 8.3\% & 0\% & 91.7\% \\ \hline The robot’s behavior was predictable & 1 & 5 & 3.33 (1.49) & 33.4\% & 8.3\% & 58.3\% \\ \hline The behavior expressed by the robot was appropriate for the content of the movie & 1 & 5 & 2.75 (1.71) & 58.3\% & 0\% & 41.7\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Answers from the children in the incongruent condition (N = 12) on the questionnaire on perceived credibility of NAO, adapted by [PERSON] [17].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt}} \hline \hline
**Predictors** & \(\beta\) & \(t\) & \(p\) \\ \hline Emotion recognition (video) & 0.720 & 4.341 & **<0.001** \\ \hline Congruence level & 0.134 & 0.742 & 0.469 \\ \hline Hearing level & 0.166 & 0.794 & 0.439 \\ \hline Empathy & 0.341 & 1.817 & 0.088 \\ \hline State empathy (affective) & 0.107 & 0.182 & 0.858 \\ \hline State empathy (associative) & \(-\)0.073 & \(-\)0.179 & 0.860 \\ \hline State empathy (total) & \(-\)0.400 & \(-\)0.511 & 0.616 \\ \hline Credibility toward the robot & 0.221 & 1.052 & 0.308 \\ \hline Age & \(-\)0.118 & \(-\)0.579 & 0.571 \\ \hline Sex & 0.421 & 2.757 & **0.014** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Summary of regression results for predicting emotion recognition in NAO. All statistically significant values are emboldened.