## 3 Results
### Analysis of Links Between Evaluations of the System and the Dialogue  
The post-dialogue questionnaire results were analyzed for each subject to investigate the individual evaluations. Hierarchical cluster analysis with the Ward method was used to examine the links between the evaluations for items about the system and the evaluation for each item about the dialogue. Figure 6 shows the dendrograms from the analysis for one subject's evaluations (from Table 2) as an example. The strength of the links was quantified with hierarchical closeness on the dendrograms from the analysis. The system evaluation items at the same hierarchy on the dendrograms with a dialogue evaluation item were assigned a step number of 0, items merged at one hierarchical level were assigned a step number of 1, those at two hierarchical levels were assigned a step number of 2, and so forth. A smaller number of steps means a stronger link. The step numbers are shown in brackets after each item in Figure 6.  
For the subject, as shown in Figure 6, the following system evaluations were most strongly linked to each dialogue evaluation. When the system was \"Easy to talk to\" and \"Inspiring\", the dialogues were \"Fun\". When the system was \"Easy to talk to\", \"Inspiring\", \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Evaluation Item**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Setting**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **Dyadic Interaction** & **Dyadic Interaction** & **Triadic Interaction** \\  & & **(with Subject)** & **(with Topic)** & **Triadic Interaction** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Dialogue} & Fun & 4 & 2 & 5 \\ \cline{2-5}  & It listens & 4 & 2 & 6 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Can have a smooth conversation & 4 & 2 & 4 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Want to talk about other topics too & 4 & 2 & 4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._  
Figure 6: Dendrograms from hierarchical cluster analysis for one of the subjects with the step number in brackets after each item. and \"Friendly\", the dialogues were \"It listens\". When the system was \"Friendly\", the dialogues were \"Can have a smooth conversation\" and \"Want to talk about other topics too\". The other system evaluations were linked more weakly. The analysis results for all thirteen subjects were aggregated to create the graphs in Figure 7, which show the distribution of the subjects for each number of steps. These graphs indicate the number of subjects who linked each system evaluation to each dialogue evaluation and the strength of these links. In the following sections on Results and Discussions, a link with a strength of 0 or 1 step was considered to be relational, and a link with a strength of 2 or more steps was non-relational. A step number of 0 means that the evaluation values for the two items were completely connected, and a step number of 1 means that the values were not the same but were close. A link with a strength of 2 or more steps was considered weak in comparison to these. According to this distinction, the items for system evaluation that were strongly linked to the dialogue evaluation were treated as relational items, while the others were treated as non-relational items. For example, in the graph of \"Friendly\" in the \"Fun\" section, four subjects linked \"Friendly\" for the system to \"Fun\" for the dialogue with a strength of 0 or 1 step, and the other nine subjects linked them with a strength of 2 or more steps. This graph indicates that \"Friendly\" for the system and \"Fun\" for the dialogue were relational for four subjects, while they were non-relational for the other nine subjects. As shown in Figure 7, the distributions of subjects in the \"Awkward\" and \"Inhuman\" graphs were all at 2 or more steps, except for one subject in each item. While \"Awkward\" and \"Inhuman\" functioned as evaluation items for the system as shown in Figure 5, the results of the analysis did not show distinct relationships with the dialogue evaluation.