## 4 Results
### Study 2
#### 4.2.2 Quantitative Results  
Correlation of SCM and WEAR Ratings  
The Pearson correlation analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between the Euclidean length of the SCM warmth-competence vector (means of warm and competence data) and the WEAR scores: \(r(430)=0.800\), \(p<0.001\), with a 95% confidence interval of (0.763, 0.831). Stereotype Content Model (SCM)  
The Shapiro-Wilk normality test indicated a significant deviation from normality for SCM competence and warmth (both \(p<0.0001\)). A non-parametric two-factorial ART RM-ANOVA for the SCM competence data showed a statistically significant main effect for GPT, \(F(1,371)=124.871\), \(p<0.0001\), \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.448\), and for Keyword, \(F(3,371)=8.499\), \(p<0.0001\), \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.142\) (both with large effect size). However, no significant interaction effect was found for GPT \(\times\)Keyword, \(F(3,371)=1.198\), \(p=0.310\), \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.023\) (small effect size). For the SCM warmth data, a significant main effect was identified for GPT, \(F(1,371)=62.461\), \(p<0.0001\), and \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.471\) (large effect size). However, no significant effect was found for Keyword, \(F(3,371)=1.282\), \(p=0.280\), \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.052\), nor for the interaction effect of GPT \(\times\)Keyword, \(F(3,371)=1.267\), \(p=0.285\), \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.051\) (both with a small effect size). Post hoc comparisons using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction revealed significant effects in SCM competence and warmth data, as documented in Table 3. The mean values of perceived warmth and competence are depicted in Figure 7.  
Wearable Acceptability Range (WEAR)  
The Shapiro-Wilk normality test indicated that the data is not normally distributed (\(p<0.0001\)). An ART RM-ANOVA showed statistically significant main effects for the GPT, \(F(1,371)=109.325\), \(p<0.0001\), \(\eta_{p}^{2}=0.450\) (large effect size), and for Keyword, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**SCM Competence**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**SCM Warmth**} \\
**Pairwise Comparisons** & **n1** & **n2** & _Stat._ & \(p\) & _Padj._ & _Sig._ & _Stat._ & \(p\) & _Padj._ & _Sig._ \\ \hline No Keyword—Usability & 108 & 108 & 1482 & 0.312 & 1 & ns & 868 & 0.337 & 1 & ns \\ No Keyword—Social Acceptability & 108 & 108 & 1943 & 0.482 & 1 & ns & 1331 & 0.605 & 1 & ns \\ No Keyword—Sporty Design & 108 & 108 & 748 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & **** & 850 & 0.146 & 0.876 & ns \\ Usability—Social Acceptability & 108 & 108 & 2135 & 0.075 & 0.450 & ns & 1508 & 0.186 & 1 & ns \\ Usability—Sporty Design & 108 & 108 & 725 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & **** & 914 & 0.221 & 1 & ns \\ Social Acceptability—Sporty Design & 108 & 108 & 764 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & **** & 854 & 0.107 & 0.642 & ns \\ \hline No Keyword: ChatGPT—Orth.FootGPT & 54 & 54 & 942 & 0.002 & 0.002 & ** & 1135 & 0.046 & 0.046 & * \\ Usability: ChatGPT—OrthoticFootGPT & 54 & 54 & 828 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & **** & 994 & 0.004 & 0.004 & ** \\ Social Accept: ChatGPT—Orth.GPT & 54 & 54 & 777 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & **** & 875 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & *** \\ Sporty Design: ChatGPT—Orth.FootGPT & 54 & 54 & 830 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & **** & 1069 & 0.016 & 0.016 & * \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Pairwise comparisons of SCM competence and warmth ratings within keywords and GPTs. Significance codes: * (\(p<0.05\)), ** (\(p<0.01\)), *** (\(p<0.001\)), **** (\(p<0.0001\)), ns = not significant. Figure 7: SCM ratings of perceived competence (x-axis) and warmth (y-axis) for each of the four Keywords. In the upper row, the four quadrants are assigned as follows, from left to right: **(a)**_No Keyword_, **(b)**_Usability_, **(c)**_Social Acceptability_, and **(d)**_Sporty Design_. The mean values for two GPTs are shown in separate colors: red (_ChatGPT_) and blue (_OrthoticFootGPT_).