Philip R Doyle
Benjamin R. Cowan
ABSTRACT
Perceptions of system competence and communicative ability, termed partner models, play a significant role in speech interface interaction. Yet we do not know what the core dimensions of this concept are. Taking a psycholexical approach, our paper is the first to identify the key dimensions that define partner models in speech agent interaction. Through a repertory grid study (N=21), a review of key subjective questionnaires, an expert review of resulting word pairs and an online study of 356 users of speech interfaces, we identify three key dimensions that make up a users’ partner model: 1) perceptions towards partner competence and dependability; 2) assessment of human-likeness; and 3) a system’s perceived cognitive flexibility. We discuss the implications for partner modelling as a concept, emphasising the importance of salience and the dynamic nature of these perceptions.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
- Icek Ajzen. 2006. Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire.Google Scholar
- Kei Akuzawa, Yusuke Iwasawa, and Yutaka Matsuo. 2018. Expressive speech synthesis via modeling expressions with variational autoencoder. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02135(2018).Google Scholar
- René Amalberti, Noëlle Carbonell, and Pierre Falzon. 1993. User representations of computer systems in human-computer speech interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38, 4 (1993), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1026Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jackie Andrade, Jon May, Catherine Deeprose, Sarah-Jane Baugh, and Giorgio Ganis. 2014. Assessing vividness of mental imagery: The Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology 105, 4 (2014), 547–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12050Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benjamin Balas, Lauren Tupa, and Jonathan Pacella. 2018. Measuring social variables in real and artificial faces. Computers in Human Behavior 88 (2018), 236–243.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Simon Baron-Cohen and Sally Wheelwright. 2003. The Friendship Questionnaire: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High-Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 33, 5 (2003), 509–517. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025879411971Google ScholarCross Ref
- Justin L Barrett and Frank C Keil. 1996. Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: Anthropomorphism in God concepts. Cognitive psychology 31, 3 (1996), 219–247.Google Scholar
- Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulić, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 1 (2009), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bernard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. 2004. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: MLQ; manual and sampler set. Mind Garden.Google Scholar
- Allan Bell. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in society 13, 2 (1984), 145–204.Google Scholar
- Linda Bell and Joakim Gustafson. 1999. Interaction with an animated agent in a spoken dialogue system. In Sixth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kirsten Bergmann, Holly P. Branigan, and Stefan Kopp. 2015. Exploring the Alignment Space: Lexical and Gestural Alignment with Real and Virtual Humans. Frontiers in ICT 2(2015). https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2015.00007Google ScholarCross Ref
- Coen A. Bernaards and Robert I. Jennrich. 2005. Gradient Projection Algorithms and Software for Arbitrary Rotation Criteria in Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 65 (2005), 676–696.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johan Bos, Staffan Larsson, I Lewin, C Matheson, and D Milward. 1999. Survey of existing interactive systems. Trindi (Task Oriented Instructional Dialogue) reportD1 (1999), 3.Google Scholar
- Holly P. Branigan, Martin J. Pickering, Jamie Pearson, and Janet F. McLean. 2010. Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 9 (2010), 2355–2368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.012Google ScholarCross Ref
- Holly P. Branigan, Martin J. Pickering, Jamie Pearson, Janet F. McLean, and Ash Brown. 2011. The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers. Cognition 121, 1 (2011), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.011Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susan E. Brennan, Alexia Galati, and Anna K. Kuhlen. 2010. Two Minds, One Dialog. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 53. Elsevier, 301–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53008-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susan E. Brennan and Justina O. Ohaeri. 1994. Effects of message style on users’ attributions toward agents. In Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’94 (Boston, Massachusetts, United States). ACM Press, 281–282. https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260492Google ScholarDigital Library
- Donald E Broadbent, P Fitzgerald Cooper, Paul FitzGerald, and Katharine R Parkes. 1982. The cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British journal of clinical psychology 21, 1 (1982), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Jeanne H. Brockmyer, Christine M. Fox, Kathleen A. Curtiss, Evan McBroom, Kimberly M. Burkhart, and Jacquelyn N. Pidruzny. 2009. The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, 4 (2009), 624 – 634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.016Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Brooke. 1996. SUS: a “quick and dirty’usability. Usability evaluation in industry(1996), 189.Google Scholar
- Martin Bruder, Peter Haffke, Nick Neave, Nina Nouripanah, and Roland Imhoff. 2013. Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Frontiers in psychology 4 (2013), 225.Google Scholar
- Martin Brüne. 2005. Emotion recognition,‘theory of mind,’and social behavior in schizophrenia. Psychiatry research 133, 2-3 (2005), 135–147.Google Scholar
- F.B. Bryant and P.R. Yarnold. 1995. Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. A.P.A., 99–136.Google Scholar
- Christopher G Buchanan, Matthew P Aylett, and David A Braude. 2018. Adding personality to neutral speech synthesis voices. In International Conference on Speech and Computer. Springer, 49–57.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Duane Buhrmester, Wyndol Furman, Mitchell T. Wittenberg, and Harry T. Reis. 1988. Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55, 6(1988), 991–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.991Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sam Cartwright-Hatton and Adrian Wells. 1997. Beliefs about Worry and Intrusions: The Meta-Cognitions Questionnaire and its Correlates. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 11, 3 (1997), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(97)00011-XGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Sherry Perdue Casali, Beverly H. Williges, and Robert D. Dryden. 1990. Effects of Recognition Accuracy and Vocabulary Size of a Speech Recognition System on Task Performance and User Acceptance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 32, 2(1990), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089003200206Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew G Chin, Valerie K Sims, Bryan Clark, and Gabriel Rivera Lopez. 2004. Measuring individual differences in anthropomorphism toward machines and animals. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 48. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1252–1255.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew G Chin, Ryan E Yordon, Bryan R Clark, Tatiana Ballion, Michael J Dolezal, Randall Shumaker, and Neal Finkelstein. 2005. Developing and anthropomorphic tendencies scale. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 49. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 1266–1268.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vincent Cho and Robert Wright. 2010. Exploring the evaluation framework of strategic information systems using repertory grid technique: a cognitive perspective from chief information officers. Behaviour & Information Technology 29, 5 (2010), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290802121206Google ScholarDigital Library
- Herbert H. Clark. 1996. Using language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leigh Clark, Phillip Doyle, Diego Garaialde, Emer Gilmartin, Stephan Schlögl, Jens Edlund, Matthew Aylett, João Cabral, Cosmin Munteanu, and Benjamin Cowan. 2019. The State of Speech in HCI: Trends, Themes and Challenges. Interact with Computers(2019), 29.Google Scholar
- Leigh Clark, Abdulmalik Ofemile, Svenja Adolphs, and Tom Rodden. 2016. A Multimodal Approach to Assessing User Experiences with Agent Helpers. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 6, 4 (2016), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2983926Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee Anna Clark and David Watson. 2016. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.(2016).Google Scholar
- Nancy L Collins. 1996. Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior.Journal of personality and social psychology 71, 4(1996), 810.Google Scholar
- Benjamin R Cowan. 2014. Understanding speech and language interactions in HCI: The importance of theory-based human-human dialogue research. (2014), 4.Google Scholar
- Benjamin R Cowan and Holly Branigan. 2017. They Know as Much as We Do: Knowledge Estimation and Partner Modelling of Artificial Partners. (2017), 6.Google Scholar
- Benjamin R. Cowan, Holly P. Branigan, Mateo Obregón, Enas Bugis, and Russell Beale. 2015. Voice anthropomorphism, interlocutor modelling and alignment effects on syntactic choices in human computer dialogue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 83 (2015), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.008Google ScholarDigital Library
- Benjamin R. Cowan, Philip Doyle, Justin Edwards, Diego Garaialde, Ali Hayes-Brady, Holly P. Branigan, João Cabral, and Leigh Clark. 2019. What’s in an accent?: the impact of accented synthetic speech on lexical choice in human-machine dialogue. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces - CUI ’19 (Dublin, Ireland). ACM Press, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342786Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. R. Cowan and M. A. Jack. 2014. Measuring Anxiety Towards Wiki Editing: Investigating the Dimensionality of the Wiki Anxiety Inventory-Editing. Interacting with Computers 26, 6 (2014), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwt050Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benjamin R. Cowan, Nadia Pantidi, David Coyle, Kellie Morrissey, Peter Clarke, Sara Al-Shehri, David Earley, and Natasha Bandeira. 2017. ”What can I help you with?”: infrequent users’ experiences of intelligent personal assistants. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI ’17 (Vienna, Austria). ACM Press, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098539Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kenneth J. W. Craik. 1943. The Nature of Explanation. The Journal of Philosophy 40, 24 (1943), 667. https://doi.org/10.2307/2018933Google ScholarCross Ref
- Douglas P Crowne and David Marlowe. 1960. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.Journal of consulting psychology 24, 4 (1960), 349.Google Scholar
- Nils Dahlbäck, QianYing Wang, Clifford Nass, and Jenny Alwin. 2007. Similarity is more important than expertise: accent effects in speech interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’07(San Jose, California, USA). ACM Press, 1553. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240859Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hannah Darwin, Nick Neave, and Joni Holmes. 2011. Belief in conspiracy theories. The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences 50, 8 (2011), 1289–1293.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B Alexander Diaz, Sophie Van Der Sluis, Sarah Moens, Jeroen S Benjamins, Filippo Migliorati, Diederick Stoffers, Anouk Den Braber, Simon-Shlomo Poil, Richard Hardstone, Dennis Van’t Ent, 2013. The Amsterdam Resting-State Questionnaire reveals multiple phenotypes of resting-state cognition. Frontiers in human neuroscience 7 (2013), 446.Google Scholar
- DL Dintruff, DG Grice, and TG Wang. 1985. User acceptance of speech technologies. Speech Technology 2, 4 (1985), 16–21.Google Scholar
- Philip R. Doyle, Justin Edwards, Odile Dumbleton, Leigh Clark, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2019. Mapping Perceptions of Humanness in Intelligent Personal Assistant Interaction. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Taipei Taiwan). ACM, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338286.3340116Google ScholarDigital Library
- Louise Dulude. 2002. Automated telephone answering systems and aging. Behaviour & Information Technology 21, 3 (2002), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929021000013482Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nicholas Duran, Rick Dale, and Alexia Galati. 2016. Toward Integrative Dynamic Models for Adaptive Perspective Taking. Topics in Cognitive Science 8, 4 (2016), 761–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12219Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jens Edlund, Joakim Gustafson, Mattias Heldner, and Anna Hjalmarsson. 2008. Towards human-like spoken dialogue systems. Speech Communication 50, 8 (2008), 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2008.04.002Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jens Edlund, Julia Bell Hirschberg, and Mattias Heldner. 2009. Pause and gap length in face-to-face interaction. Columbia University (2009). https://doi.org/10.7916/d82f7wt9Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rochelle E. Evans and Philip Kortum. 2010. The impact of voice characteristics on user response in an interactive voice response system. Interacting with Computers 22, 6 (2010), 606–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.001Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel Fallman and John Waterworth. 2010. Capturing User Experiences of Mobile Information Technology With the Repertory Grid Technique. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments 6, 2 (2010), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201011173094Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bruce A. Fernie, Marcantonio M. Spada, Ana V. Nikčević, George A. Georgiou, and Giovanni B. Moneta. 2009. Metacognitive Beliefs About Procrastination: Development and Concurrent Validity of a Self-Report Questionnaire. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy 23, 4 (2009), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.23.4.283 arXiv:https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrjcp/23/4/283.full.pdfGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Andy Field, Jeremy Miles, and Zoë Field. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using R by Andy Field, Jeremy Miles, Zoë Field. International Statistical Review 81, 1 (2013), 169–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12011_21Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yannick Forster, Frederik Naujoks, and Alexandra Neukum. 2017. Increasing anthropomorphism and trust in automated driving functions by adding speech output. In 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 365–372.Google Scholar
- Fay Fransella, Richard Bell, and D. Bannister. 2004. A manual for repertory grid technique(2nd ed ed.). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Susan R. Fussell and Robert M. Krauss. 1992. Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers’ assumptions about what others know.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62, 3(1992), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.378Google ScholarCross Ref
- Emer Gilmartin, Marine Collery, Ketong Su, Yuyun Huang, Christy Elias, Benjamin R. Cowan, and Nick Campbell. 2017. Social talk: making conversation with people and machine. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI International Workshop on Investigating Social Interactions with Artificial Agents - ISIAA 2017 (Glasgow, UK). ACM Press, 31–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3139491.3139494Google ScholarDigital Library
- Li Gong and Jennifer Lai. 2001. Shall we mix synthetic speech and human speech?: impact on users’ performance, perception, and attitude. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’01 (Seattle, Washington, United States). ACM Press, 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365090Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert Goodman. 2001. Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 40, 11(2001), 1337–1345. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank M Gresham and Stephen N Elliott. 1990. Social skills rating system: Manual. American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
- Christiaan Grootaert. 2004. Measuring social capital: an integrated questionnaire. no. 18 (2004).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marc Hassenzahl, Michael Burmester, and Franz Koller. 2003. AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In Mensch & computer 2003. Springer, 187–196.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Trevor Hogan and Eva Hornecker. 2013. Blending the repertory grid technique with focus groups to reveal rich design relevant insight. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces - DPPI ’13 (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom). ACM Press, 116. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513519Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kate S. Hone and Robert Graham. 2000. Towards a tool for the Subjective Assessment of Speech System Interfaces (SASSI). Natural Language Engineering 6, 3 (2000), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324900002497Google ScholarDigital Library
- Francis Huang. 2015. Horn’s (1965) Test to Determine the Number of Components/Factors. (Version 1).Google Scholar
- Elin Jacob and Debora Shaw. 1998. Sociocognitive Perspectives on Representation. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 33 (1998), 131–85.Google Scholar
- Devi Jankowicz. 2004. The easy guide to repertory grids. Wiley.Google Scholar
- Alan M Jette, Allyson R Davies, Paul D Cleary, David R Calkins, Lisa V Rubenstein, Arlene Fink, Jacqueline Kosecoff, Roy T Young, Robert H Brook, and Thomas L Delbanco. 1986. The functional status questionnaire. Journal of general internal medicine 1, 3 (1986), 143–149.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Philip N. Johnson-Laird. 1980. Mental Models in Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science 4(1980), 71–115.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. N. Johnson-Laird. 2010. Mental models and human reasoning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 43(2010), 18243–18250. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012933107Google ScholarCross Ref
- AF Jorm. 1994. A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): development and cross-validation. Psychological medicine 24, 1 (1994), 145–153.Google Scholar
- Shaughan A Keaton. 2017. Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1980). The Sourcebook of listening research: Methodology and measures (2017), 340–347.Google Scholar
- George Kelly. 1991. The psychology of personal constructs. Routledge in association with the Centre for Personal Construct Psychology.Google Scholar
- Peter Kinderman and Richard P Bentall. 1996. A new measure of causal locus: the internal, personal and situational attributions questionnaire. Personality and Individual differences 20, 2 (1996), 261–264.Google Scholar
- Sabina Kleitman and Lazar Stankov. 2007. Self-confidence and metacognitive processes. Learning and Individual Differences 17, 2 (2007), 161 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul Kline. 2000. A psychometrics primer. Free Association. OCLC: 833721971.Google Scholar
- Paul Kline. 2013. Handbook of Psychological Testing(2 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315812274Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leanne K. Knobloch and Denise Haunani Solomon. 2005. Relational Uncertainty and Relational Information Processing: Questions without Answers?Communication Research 32, 3 (2005), 349–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205275384Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Baki Kocaballi, Juan C. Quiroz, Liliana Laranjo, Dana Rezazadegan, Rafal Kocielnik, Leigh Clark, Q. Vera Liao, Sun Young Park, Robert J. Moore, and Adam Miner. 2020. Conversational Agents for Health and Wellbeing. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3375154Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chris E. Lalonde and Michael J. Chandler. 1995. False belief understanding goes to school: On the social-emotional consequences of coming early or late to a first theory of mind. Cognition & Emotion 9, 2 (1995), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939508409007Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lars Bo Larsen. 2003. Assessment of Spoken Dialogue System Usability - What are We really Measuring?. In Proceedings from EuroSpeech 2003 - Interspeech 2003 8th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Geneva). ISCA.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lucian Leahu, Marisa Cohn, and Wendy March. 2013. How categories come to matter. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’13 (Paris, France). ACM Press, 3331. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466455Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kwan Min Lee and Clifford Nass. 2003. Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction. In Proceedings of the conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’03 (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA). ACM Press, 289. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642662Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ewa Luger and Abigail Sellen. 2016. ”Like Having a Really Bad PA”: The Gulf between User Expectation and Experience of Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’16 (Santa Clara, California, USA). ACM Press, 5286–5297. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858288Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael R. Maniaci and Ronald D. Rogge. 2014. Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality 48 (2014), 61 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rod A. Martin, Patricia Puhlik-Doris, Gwen Larsen, Jeanette Gray, and Kelly Weir. 2003. Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality 37, 1 (2003), 48 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roger K Moore. 2017. Is spoken language all-or-nothing? Implications for future speech-based human-machine interaction. In Dialogues with Social Robots. Springer, 281–291.Google Scholar
- Nick Neave, Rachel Jackson, Tamsin Saxton, and Johannes Hönekopp. 2015. The influence of anthropomorphic tendencies on human hoarding behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences 72 (2015), 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.041Google ScholarCross Ref
- Raymond S. Nickerson. 1999. How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others.Psychological Bulletin 125, 6 (1999), 737–759. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.737Google ScholarCross Ref
- Donald Norman. 1983. Some Observations on Mental Models. In Mental Models (1sted.). Psychology Press, 7–15.Google Scholar
- Donald A. Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things(revised and expanded edition ed.). Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Sally Olderbak and Oliver Wilhelm. 2017. Emotion perception and empathy: An individual differences test of relations.Emotion 17, 7 (2017), 1092.Google Scholar
- Sharon Oviatt, Jon Bernard, and Gina-Anne Levow. 1998. Linguistic Adaptations During Spoken and Multimodal Error Resolution. Language and Speech 41, 3 (1998), 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099804100409Google ScholarCross Ref
- Arun Parasuraman, Leonard L Berry, and Valarie A Zeithaml. 1991. Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of retailing 67, 4 (1991), 420.Google Scholar
- Jamie Pearson, Jiang Hu, Holly P Branigan, Martin J Pickering, and Clifford I Nass. 2006. Adaptive Language Behavior in HCI: How Expectations and Beliefs about a System Affect Users’ Word Choice. (2006), 4.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jan Hyld Pejtersen, Tage Søndergård Kristensen, Vilhelm Borg, and Jakob Bue Bjorner. 2010. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian journal of public health 38, 3_suppl (2010), 8–24.Google Scholar
- John L. Perry, Peter J. Clough, Lee Crust, Keith Earle, and Adam R. Nicholls. 2013. Factorial validity of the Mental Toughness Questionnaire-48. Personality and Individual Differences 54, 5 (2013), 587 – 592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.020Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher Peterson, Amy Semmel, Carl Von Baeyer, Lyn Y Abramson, Gerald I Metalsky, and Martin EP Seligman. 1982. The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive therapy and research 6, 3 (1982), 287–299.Google Scholar
- Paul R. Pintrich and Elisabeth V. De Groot. 1990. Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 1 (1990), 33–40.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Melanie D Polkosky. 2005. Toward a social-cognitive psychology of speech technology: Affective responses to speech-based eservice. (2005). https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1818&context=etdGoogle Scholar
- Melanie D Polkosky and James R Lewis. 2003. Expanding the MOS: Development and psychometric evaluation of the MOS-R and MOS-X. International Journal of Speech Technology 6, 2 (2003), 161–182.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pernilla Qvarfordt, Arne Jönsson, and Nils Dahlbäck. 2003. The role of spoken feedback in experiencing multimodal interfaces as human-like. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Multimodal interfaces - ICMI ’03 (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada). ACM Press, 250. https://doi.org/10.1145/958432.958478Google ScholarDigital Library
- R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.orgISBN 3-900051-07-0.Google Scholar
- Renate LEP Reniers, Rhiannon Corcoran, Richard Drake, Nick M Shryane, and Birgit A Völlm. 2011. The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of personality assessment 93, 1 (2011), 84–95.Google ScholarCross Ref
- William Revelle. 2020. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psychR package version 2.0.8.Google Scholar
- Carolien Rieffe, Lizet Ketelaar, and Carin H Wiefferink. 2010. Assessing empathy in young children: Construction and validation of an Empathy Questionnaire (EmQue). Personality and individual differences 49, 5 (2010), 362–367.Google Scholar
- GC Roberts and G Balagué. 1991. The development and validation of the Perception of Success Questionnaire. In FEPSAC Congress, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
- Peter AM Ruijten, Antal Haans, Jaap Ham, and Cees JH Midden. 2019. Perceived human-likeness of social robots: testing the Rasch model as a method for measuring anthropomorphism. International Journal of Social Robotics 11, 3 (2019), 477–494.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maha Salem, Friederike Eyssel, Katharina Rohlfing, Stefan Kopp, and Frank Joublin. 2013. To Err is Human(-like): Effects of Robot Gesture on Perceived Anthropomorphism and Likability. International Journal of Social Robotics 5, 3 (2013), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0196-9Google ScholarCross Ref
- Irwin G. Sarason, Henry M. Levine, Robert B. Basham, and Barbara R. Sarason. 1983. Assessing social support: The Social Support Questionnaire.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 1(1983), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.127Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sau-lai Lee, Ivy Yee-man Lau, S. Kiesler, and Chi-Yue Chiu. 2005. Human Mental Models of Humanoid Robots. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Barcelona, Spain). IEEE, 2767–2772. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2005.1570532Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elisabeth Schaffalitzky, Sinead NiMhurchadha, Pamela Gallagher, Susan Hofkamp, Malcolm MacLachlan, and Stephen T. Wegener. 2009. Identifying the Values and Preferences of Prosthetic Users: A Case Study Series Using the Repertory Grid Technique. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 33, 2 (2009), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/03093640902855571Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gregory Schraw and Rayne Sperling Dennison. 1994. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational psychology 19, 4 (1994), 460–475.Google Scholar
- Martin Schrepp, Andreas Hinderks, and Jörg Thomaschewski. 2017. Design and Evaluation of a Short Version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S).IJIMAI 4, 6 (2017), 103–108.Google Scholar
- Mildred L.G. Shaw and Laurie F. Thomas. 1978. FOCUS on education—an interactive computer system for the development and analysis of repertory grids. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 10, 2 (1978), 139–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(78)80009-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Virginia Slaughter, Michelle J Dennis, and Michelle Pritchard. 2002. Theory of mind and peer acceptance in preschool children. British journal of developmental psychology 20, 4 (2002), 545–564.Google Scholar
- Michael A. Smyer, Brian F. Hofland, and Edward A. Jonas. 1979. Validity Study of the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire for the Elderly*. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 27, 6 (1979), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1979.tb06128.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Brendan Spillane, Emer Gilmartin, Christian Saam, and Vincent Wade. 2019. Issues Relating to Trust in Care Agents for the Elderly. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (Dublin, Ireland) (CUI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 20, 3 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342775.3342808Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Nathan Spreng, Margaret C. McKinnon, Raymond A. Mar, and Brian Levine. 2009. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale Development and Initial Validation of a Factor-Analytic Solution to Multiple Empathy Measures. Journal of Personality Assessment 91, 1 (2009), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802484381Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael F Steger, Patricia Frazier, Shigehiro Oishi, and Matthew Kaler. 2006. The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life.Journal of counseling psychology 53, 1 (2006), 80.Google Scholar
- Anita Tobar-Henríquez, Hugh Rabagliati, and Holly P. Branigan. 2020. Lexical entrainment reflects a stable individual trait: Implications for individual differences in language processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 46, 6(2020), 1091–1105. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000774Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lai Lai Tung, Yun Xu, and Felix B. Tan. 2009. Attributes of Web Site Usability: A Study of Web Users with the Repertory Grid Technique. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 13, 4 (2009), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415130405Google ScholarDigital Library
- Larry Vandergrift, Christine CM Goh, Catherine J Mareschal, and Marzieh H Tafaghodtari. 2006. The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language learning 56, 3 (2006), 431–462.Google Scholar
- Sarah Theres Völkel, Ramona Schödel, Daniel Buschek, Clemens Stachl, Verena Winterhalter, Markus Bühner, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2020. Developing a Personality Model for Speech-based Conversational Agents Using the Psycholexical Approach. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu HI USA). ACM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376210Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marilyn A. Walker, Jeanne Fromer, Giuseppe Di Fabbrizio, Craig Mestel, and Don Hindle. 1998. What can I say?: evaluating a spoken language interface to Email. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’98 (Los Angeles, California, United States). ACM Press, 582–589. https://doi.org/10.1145/274644.274722Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marilyn A Walker, Diane J Litman, Candace A Kamm, and Alicia Abella. 1998. Evaluating spoken dialogue agents with PARADISE: Two case studies. Computer speech and language 12, 4 (1998), 317–348.Google Scholar
- Adam Waytz, John Cacioppo, and Nicholas Epley. 2010. Who Sees Human?: The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5, 3 (2010), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lynn Westbrook. 2006. Mental models: a theoretical overview and preliminary study. Journal of Information Science 32, 6 (2006), 563–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506068134Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sally Wheelwright, Simon Baron-Cohen, Nigel Goldenfeld, Joe Delaney, Debra Fine, Richard Smith, Leonora Weil, and Akio Wakabayashi. 2006. Predicting autism spectrum quotient (AQ) from the systemizing quotient-revised (SQ-R) and empathy quotient (EQ). Brain research 1079, 1 (2006), 47–56.Google Scholar
- Carsten Zoll and Sibylle Enz. 2010. A questionnaire to assess affective and cognitive empathy in children. (2010).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- What Do We See in Them? Identifying Dimensions of Partner Models for Speech Interfaces Using a Psycholexical Approach
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
A speech-in list-out approach to spoken user interfaces
HLT-NAACL-Short '04: Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2004: Short PapersSpoken user interfaces are conventionally either dialogue-based or menu-based. In this paper we propose a third approach, in which the task of invoking responses from the system is treated as one of retrieval from the set of all possible responses. ...
Cognitively-inspired representational approach to meaning in machine dialogue
One of the most fundamental research questions in the field of human–machine interaction is how to enable dialogue systems to capture the meaning of spontaneously produced linguistic inputs without explicit syntactic expectations. This paper introduces ...
Deploying speech interfaces to the masses
IUI '13 Companion: Proceedings of the companion publication of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces companionSpeech systems are typically deployed either over phones, e.g. IVR agents, or on embodied agents, e.g. domestic robots. Most of these systems are limited to a particular platform i.e., only accessible by phone or in situated interactions. This limits ...
Comments