## 4 Results
### Credibility toward NAO  
Overall, the children experienced NAO as credible (M = 3.84; SD = 0.83). The level of congruence predicted perceived credibility of the robot in a linear regression analysis (\(\beta=-0.451\), \(p=0.01\)), indicating that the children who saw [PERSON] react to emotions in a congruent matter perceived the robot as more credible. The children in the congruent condition found it easier to imagine what the robot was thinking (M = 4.27; SD = 1.22) compared to the incongruent group (M = 3.0; SD = 1.41; t25 = 2.496, \(p=0.02\)). The children in the congruent condition also found [PERSON] to respond more appropriately to the emotions in the videos, compared to the incongruent group (M\({}_{\text{congruent}}\) = 4.73, SD\({}_{\text{congruent}}\) = 0.46; M\({}_{\text{incongruent}}\) = 2.75, SD\({}_{\text{incongruent}}\) = 1.71; t(12.26) = 3.903, \(p=0.002\); see Tables 3 and 4 for frequency distribution of responses to each item by the congruent and incongruent groups, respectively).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **M (SD)** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** & **11** \\ \hline
**1** Emotion recognition (NAO) & 1.96 (1.09) & – & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**2** Emotion recognition (video) & 2.00 (0.78) & 0.639 ** & – & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**3** Level of congruence 1 & 1.44 (0.51) & \(-\)0.039 & \(-\)0.097 & – & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**4** Hearing level 2 & 1.33 (0.48) & \(-\)0.049 & \(-\)0.102 & 000 & – & & & & & & \\ \hline
**5** Empathy & 2.70 (0.54) & \(-\)0.019 & \(-\)0.181 & \(-\)0.203 & \(-\)0.049 & – & & & & & \\ \hline
**6** Affective empathy & 3.59 (1.09) & 0.148 & 0.325 & 0.044 & 0.104 & \(-\)0.033 & – & & & & \\ \hline
**7** Associative empathy & 3.27 (1.30) & 0.102 & 0.265 & 0.148 & \(-\)0.072 & 0.131 & 0.815 ** & – & & & \\ \hline
**8** State empathy * & 3.62 (0.89) & 0.174 & 0.346 & 0.037 & \(-\)0.043 & 0.082 & 0.935* & 0.915 ** & – & & \\ \hline
**9** Believability & 3.84 (0.84) & 0.168 & 0.151 & \(-\)0.451 * & \(-\)0.165 & 0.293 & 0.222 & 0.428 * & 0.389 * & - & \\ \hline
**10** Age & 7.59 (1.50) & \(-\)0.033 & 0.196 & 0.045 & 0.569 ** &.0130 & 0.030 & 0.009 & 0.037 & \(-\)0.102 & - \\ \hline
**11** Sex 3 & 1.59 (0.50) & 0.534 ** & 0.196 & \(-\)0.017 & \(-\)0.053 & 0.105 & 0.177 & \(-\)0.003 & 0.133 & \(-\)0.056 & \(-\)0.178 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. * * _p_! 0.05; ** _p_! 0.01. 1 Level of congruence: 1 = congruent, 2 = incongruent. 2 Hearing level: 0 = hearing children, 1 = deaf children. 3 Sex: 1 = boy, 2 = girl.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Descriptive statistics and correlations.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **Min** & **Max** &
\begin{tabular}{l} **M** \\ **(SD)** \\ \end{tabular} & **To a Minor** \\ **T**on Some Extent** & **To a Great** & **Extent** \\ \hline The robot perceived the \\ content of the movie \\ clip correctly & 2 & 5 & 4.53 (0.84) & 6.7\% & 0\% & 93.3\% \\ \hline It was easy to understand \\ which emotion was expressed \\ by the robot & 3 & 5 & 4.60 (0.63) & 0\% & 6.7\% & 93.3\% \\ \hline It was easy to understand \\ what the robot was & 1 & 5 & 4.27 (1.22) & 13.3\% & 0\% & 86.7\% \\ thinking about & & & & & & \\ \hline The robot has a personality & 1 & 5 & 3.80 (1.52) & 20.0\% & 0\% & 80.0\% \\ \hline The robot’s behavior drew \\ my attention & 1 & 5 & 4.00 (1.46) & 26.7\% & 0\% & 73.3\% \\ \hline The robot’s behavior & 1 & 5 & 3.27 (1.75) & 40.0\% & 6.7\% & 53.3\% \\ was predictable & & & & & & \\ \hline The behavior expressed by the \\ robot was appropriate for the & 4 & 5 & 4.73 (0.45) & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 100\% \\ content of the movie & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Answers from the children in the congruent condition (N = 15) on the questionnaire on perceived credibility of [PERSON], adapted by [PERSON] [17].