## 3 Experimental Studies and Results
### Experiments 3: The Robot Listens to a Story
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Title 1** & **Before or After the User’s Gaze** & **During the User’s Gaze** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Robots’ reactions to human gaze: gaze responsive and gaze aversive behavior. Results and a Preliminary Discussion  
According to the results of this experiment, if a person explicitly preferred a specific robot or evaluated it higher, they were assigned to the corresponding preference group. Within these groups, 26% of people (\(n=12\)) preferred the gaze-avoiding robot (triangle), 28% of people (\(n=13\)) preferred the gaze-responsive robot (square), and 46% (\(n=21\)) evaluated the robots as equal. The subjects who preferred a specific robot demonstrated significantly different results on the scale of recognition of the emotions of others within the EmIn test. People who preferred the gaze-responsive robot had a level of emotional intelligence significantly higher than the group who preferred the gaze-avoiding robot (Figure 6). The subjects did not demonstrate any significant difference in any other scale of the emotional intelligence test. The results show that people with high sensitivity to emotions, measured with a dedicated scale of emotional intelligence, preferred the robot with a responsive gaze (\(p<0.05\), Mann-Whitney U-test). Several people in this group even described the gaze-avoiding robot as reacting to the user's gaze by looking sideways and characterized it as shy, thoughtful, or even female. Other respondents noted that they were eager to attract the attention of the gaze-avoiding robot, as they believed the robot was losing interest during the narrative. Several respondents noted that the triangle robot seemed to be simultaneously (a) paying attention to the human's narrative and (b) thinking about the events of the story or addressing some intrusive thoughts. For example, some people reported that \"it is interesting how the robot seems to look at me while looking sideways\". We can suggest the following interpretation of this phenomenon. The participants were perceiving the gaze-avoiding movement of the triangle robot as a compound pattern in which the robot (a) moves his gaze away immediately after the user's gaze, thus showing a type of responsive-gaze behavior, that is, paying attention to the user, and (b) looks sideways, thus showing a pattern typical for thinking about the events, according to the REC corpus. In other words, for these participants, the immediate start and the pattern of the movement (looking sideways) were invoked by two different internal states assigned to the robot. The immediate start of gaze movement was interpreted as expressed attention, and the looking sideways pattern was interpreted as thoughtfulness. Figure 6: Level of emotional intelligence in our subjects vs. their preferences of the robots’ social gaze behavior. Although gaze-avoiding and gaze-responsive behaviors were designed as straightforward reactions to the user's gaze, several people noted different aspects of the movements. Some people who preferred the gaze-avoiding robot characterized it as more expressive and active since it was moving between three positions with high amplitude. People could also concentrate not on the responsive phase (when the robot looked up or sideways), but on the return movement to the inactive position (when the robot was looking down), which was sometimes interpreted as being attentive to the cards on the table or being upset about the events of the story. Assuming these deviations in the descriptions, the evaluation of the group with the correct identification of the differences between the robots is rather speculative. As for the criteria, we selected people who explicitly indicated that the robot with a square was looking at me and/or the robot with a triangle was looking sideways.