## 4 Results and Discussion
### Limitations and Future Research Directions  
This study primarily relied on quantitative data collected through a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. While this approach provided generalizable findings, it may not capture the full spectrum of participants' attitudes and behaviors. Future research could explore the use of alternative scales, such as 7-point or 10-point Likert scales, to capture more nuanced opinions and enhance the depth of responses. Additionally, the exclusive reliance on quantitative methods is a limitation, as it may overlook the subtleties of human experiences. Incorporating qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, in future studies could provide richer insights and validate the constructs examined in this research. Another limitation lies in the potential biases associated with the use of video scenarios to simulate human-robot interactions. While video scenarios add an experiential dimension, participant perceptions based on these scenarios may not fully translate into real-world behaviors. Future research could address this limitation by complementing video scenarios with live demonstrations or hands-on interactions with robots to enhance ecological validity and provide a more accurate assessment of human-robot interaction dynamics. This study also acknowledges the challenges related to ethical concerns. Issues such as data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the potential misuse of robots for surveillance purposes warrant careful consideration. Future research could explore the development of ethical frameworks and transparent policies to guide the responsible integration of robots in office environments.  
Finally, socio-economic disparities present a significant challenge. Access to advanced robotic technologies may be limited to wealthier organizations, potentially exacerbating inequalities. Workforce reskilling and the creation of inclusive policies will be essential to mitigate job displacement and ensure equitable benefits from robot adoption. Expanding the scope of research to include organizations in diverse socio-economic contexts could provide more comprehensive insights into these challenges and inform strategies for equitable technology integration. For example, future studies could investigate the impact of subsidized robotics programs or public-private partnerships on bridging the accessibility gap. The rapid advancement of robotic technologies poses another limitation, as the findings from this study may become less applicable as new generations of robots with enhanced capabilities emerge. Future research could adopt longitudinal study designs to track changes in acceptance patterns over time, particularly as robots become more autonomous, interactive, and socially adept. Additionally, investigating the scalability of robot integration across different organizational sizes and sectors would further enrich the understanding of their potential impact. While this study focused on participants from two culturally distinct regions, the findings may not fully capture the broader global diversity in robot acceptance. Expanding future research to include participants from a wider range of cultural backgrounds, as well as varying age groups, industries, and educational levels, could provide more representative insights. This would be particularly useful for identifying universal versus culture-specific factors influencing robot acceptance. Finally, future studies could delve deeper into the practical challenges organizations face when implementing robots in office environments. Topics such as the cost-effectiveness of robot adoption, the integration of robots with existing workflows, and employee training programs deserve further exploration to provide actionable recommendations for organizations considering robotic technologies