## 4 Results and Discussion
### Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Hypothesis Testing
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l} \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Complete Data**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Structural Relationship**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\beta\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S.E.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**t value**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**R\({}^{2}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Result**} \\ \hline H1: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Performance Expectancy (PE) & 0.477 & 0.095 & 5.195 & *** & 0.562 & Supported \\ H2a: & Performance Expectancy (PE) \(\leftarrow\) & Effort Expectancy (EE) & 0.853 & 0.069 & 17.734 & *** & 0.728 & Supported \\ H2b: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Effort Expectancy (EE) & \(-0.214\) & 0.196 & \(-1.621\) & 0.105 & 0.562 & Not supported \\ H3: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Social Influence (SI) & 0.423 & 0.080 & 7.160 & *** & 0.562 & Supported \\ H4: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Perceived Sociability (PS) & 0.189 & 0.052 & 4.033 & *** & 0.562 & Supported \\  & & EE correlated SI & 0.712 & 0.037 & 10.704 & *** & & \\  & & SI correlated PS & 0.518 & 0.042 & 9.277 & *** & & \\  & & EE correlated PS & 0.654 & 0.043 & 10.334 & *** & & \\  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**United Kingdom**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Structural Relationship**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\beta\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S.E.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**t value**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**R\({}^{2}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Result**} \\ \hline H1: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Performance Expectancy (PE) & 0.434 & 0.119 & 3.700 & *** & 0.667 & Supported \\ H2a: & Performance Expectancy (PE) \(\leftarrow\) & Effort Expectancy (EE) & 0.863 & 0.095 & 13.507 & *** & 0.745 & Supported \\ H2b: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Effort Expectancy (EE) & \(-0.020\) & 0.268 & \(-1.142\) & 0.254 & 0.667 & Not supported \\ H3: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Social Influence (SI) & 0.525 & 0.108 & 0.647 & *** & 0.667 & Supported \\ H4: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Perceived Sociability (PS) & 0.159 & 0.068 & 2.52 & *** & 0.667 & Supported \\  & & EE correlated SI & 0.788 & 0.058 & 8.420 & *** & & \\  & & SI correlated PS & 0.648 & 0.071 & 7.985 & *** & & \\  & & EE correlated PS & 0.708 & 0.064 & 7.905 & *** & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Turkey**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Structural Relationship**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\beta\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**S.E.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**t value**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**R\({}^{2}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Result**} \\ \hline H1: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Performance Expectancy (PE) & 0.372 & 0.062 & 5.929 & *** & 0.474 & Supported \\ H2a: & Performance Expectancy (PE) \(\leftarrow\) & Effort Expectancy (EE) & 0.620 & 0.077 & 9.872 & *** & 0.385 & Supported \\ H2b: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Effort Expectancy (EE) & 0.001 & 0.078 & 0.018 & 0.986 & 0.474 & Not supported \\ H3: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Social Influence (SI) & 0.239 & 0.134 & 3.762 & *** & 0.474 & Supported \\ H4: & Behavioral Intention (BI) \(\leftarrow\) & Perceived Sociability (PS) & 0.335 & 0.058 & 5.819 & *** & 0.474 & Supported \\  & & EE correlated SI & 0.419 & 0.030 & 5.043 & *** & & \\  & & SI correlated PS & 0.364 & 0.036 & 4.460 & *** & & \\  & & EE correlated PS & 0.393 & 0.053 & 5.713 & *** & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{S.E: standard error. * \(p<0.05\), and *** \(p<0.001\).} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Structural parameter estimates. as requiring minimal manual interaction, further diminishing the perceived importance of effort expectancy in shaping their intentions. The relationship between social influence (SI) and behavioral intention (BI) to use the robot as a co-worker was positive and significant for complete data, and those from the United Kingdom and Turkey.