The null hypothesis was that we would find no correlation between either age, presence of siblings, or shyness, to the display of mimicry, empathy, emotional restraint, understanding of sense of `other', or overall assessment of emotional intelligence.
The results (see Appendix D, table D.1) produced something quite different. There was a distinct correlation of age with everything except mimicry and empathy (see figures 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4). Additionally, the correlation of siblings with recognition, a sense of `other', and their general assessment of emotional intelligence, was an unexpected result that suggests that having siblings may enhance the emotional development of a child (see section 5.2 The Child). The results also demonstrated that shyness was not much of an obstacle to emotional development, correlating inversely with emotional restraint, but not impacting other areas under measurement.
Most of the children in the main study were delighted to play with the Affective Tigger. Only two of the twelve children who participated in the main study showed little to no interest in the Affective Tigger. It was the two boys, who incidentally came to the lab together, who were far more intrigued by my distracter toy than by the Affective Tigger. The other nine children in the main study were girls, and it was they who seemed excited to play with the Affective Tigger. With such a small sample set of boys, no conclusions regarding gender can be made from this observation.
On three of the trials in the main study, the child and parent didn't believe that the Affective Tigger was reactive enough. In every case they understood that the Affective Tigger was responding to the predetermined cues, but often commented that his voice was not loud enough, and his ears did not move enough. In general though, they all understood the emotional expression the Affective Tigger was trying to convey, and in no case did they confuse sadness for happiness or vice versa. Even when the child could not understand the words the Affective Tigger was speaking, she none-the-less discerned the emotional content of the Affective Tigger's vocalizations.
As much as the children liked playing with the Affective Tigger, the adults also seemed impressed by the Affective Tigger. They understood the educational value of the toy, and vocalized opinions that they regarded these intentions very highly. In some situations, the parent was even more excited about the toy than the child. One parent expressed her negativity towards the Affective Tigger, but made it clear that the main problem, in her eyes, was a mismatch in the age of her child to the aims of the Affective Tigger. Five of the accompanying adults voiced concerns about `all these new robotic toys' and how they only keep the interest of their child for a very short time. For example, one mother complained about how boring it is to squeeze the paw of a toy to hear it play a song. These concerns appeared to be alleviated after the parent realized that the Affective Tigger is specifically designed to `teach' their child about feelings. This offers the child a more complex interaction than many similar computer-toys on the shelf today.