## 3 Results
### Effect of Experiment's Design Factors on Participants' Responses to Q1 through Q5  
Table 1 summarizes the results of GLM on the effect of experiment's design factors (i.e., trials' order and operator's gender in the case of (sham) human-controlled trial) and their interaction on participants' responses to Q1 through Q5.  
In the case of Q1, it identified a significant effect of operator's gender (F = 4.60, \(p=0.041\), \(\eta^{2}=0.15\)) that did not survive the Bonferroni correction. On the other hand, this analysis identified non-significant effect of trial-order (F = 0.0, \(p=1.0\), \(\eta^{2}=0.0\)) and the interaction between these factors (F = 0.14, \(p=0.708\), \(\eta^{2}=0.005\)).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Resposes** & **Factor** & **F** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Q1} & Operator’s Gender & 4.60 & 0.041 & 0.15 \\  & Trial-Order & 0.0 & 1.0 & 0.0 \\  & Operator’s Gender \(\times\) Trial-Order & 0.14 & 0.708 & 0.005 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Q2} & Operator’s Gender & 1.84 & 0.186 & 0.06 \\  & Trial-Order & 0.07 & 0.788 & 0.002 \\  & Operator’s Gender \(\times\) Trial-Order & 3.68 & 0.065 & 0.11 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Q3} & Operator’s Gender & 0.08 & 0.773 & 0.002 \\  & Trial-Order & 10.24 & 0.003 & 0.27 \\  & Operator’s Gender \(\times\) Trial-Order & 0.17 & 0.684 & 0.005 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Q4} & Operator’s Gender & 0.55 & 0.463 & 0.02 \\  & Trial-Order & 0.06 & 0.806 & 0.002 \\  & Operator’s Gender \(\times\) Trial-Order & 0.12 & 0.728 & 0.004 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Q5} & Operator’s Gender & 0.25 & 0.623 & 0.009 \\  & Trial-Order & 0.25 & 0.622 & 0.009 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Operator’s Gender \(\times\) Trial-Order & 0.50 & 0.488 & 0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: GLM: Effect of experiment’s design factors (i.e., operator’s gender, trial-order, and their interaction) on participants’ responses to Q1 through Q5. In this table, “Operator’s Gender” refers to the supposed gender of operator in (sham) human-controlled trial.  
Figure 2: Participants’ responses to Q1 through Q5 For Q2, we found non-significant effects of operator's gender (F = 1.84, \(p\) = 0.186, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.06), trial-order (F = 0.07, \(p\) = 0.788, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.002), and their interaction (F = 3.68, \(p\) = 0.065, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.11) on participants' response.  
In the case of Q3, we observed a non-significant effect of operator's gender (F = 0.08, \(p\) = 0.773, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.0002), a significant effect of trial-order (F = 10.24, \(p\) = 0.003 \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.27), and a non-significant interaction between these factors (F = 0.17, \(p\) = 0.684, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.005). Additionally, the follow-up posthoc \(\chi^{2}\) test on the significant effect of trial-order identified (Figure 3) that the participants significantly (\(\chi^{2}\)= 6.56, \(p\) = 0.010, \(\phi\) = 0.47) preferred (Figure 3) their first trial (i.e., regardless of whether it was a robot- or (sham) human-controlled trial) while responding to Q3 (i.e., \"I felt more comfortable with the robot-arm touching me\").  
With respect to Q4, we found non-significant effects of operator's gender (F = 0.55, \(p\) = 0.463, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.02), trial-order (F = 0.06, \(p\) = 0.806, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.002), and their interaction (F = 0.12, \(p\) = 0.728, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.004).  
Last, participants' responses to Q5 was not affected by the operator's gender (F = 0.25, \(p\) = 0.623, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.009), trial-order (F = 0.25, \(p\) = 0.622, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.009), and the interaction between these factors (F = 0.50, \(p\) = 0.488, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.02).