In the published article, there was an error in Table 5. For each second construct/dimension, the means are swapped between Chinese and English data, which is caused by an error in the underlying R script. Consequently, the plus and minus signs for the delta and CI values are also wrong. The corrected Table 5 and its caption appear below. Construct/dimension rating difference between mixed-international English-speaking and Chinese mother-tongue groups. Δ Score are pairwise differences between Chinese and mother-tongue cultural background and mixed-international cultural background taken from the posterior distribution. M, mean; SD, standard deviation; CI, credible interval. The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

The Artificial-Social-Agent (ASA) questionnaire is an instrument for evaluating human-ASA interaction. It consists of 19 constructs and related dimensions measured by either 24 questionnaire items (short version) or 90 questionnaire items (long version). The questionnaire was built and validated by a research community effort to make evaluation results more comparable between agents and findings more generalizable. The current questionnaire is in English, which limits its use to only a population with an adequate command of the English language. Translating the questionnaire into more languages allows for the inclusion of other populations and the possibility of comparing them. Therefore, this paper presents a Mandarin Chinese translation of the questionnaire. After three construction cycles that included forward and backward translation, we gave both the final version of the translated and original English questionnaire to 242 bilingual crowd-workers to evaluate 14 ASAs. Results show on average a good level of correlation on the construct/dimension level (ICC M = 0.79, SD = 0.09, range [0.61, 0.95]) and on the item level (ICC M = 0.62, SD = 0.14, range [0.19, 0.92]) between the two languages for the long version, and for the short version (ICC M = 0.66, SD = 0.12, range [0.41, 0.92]). The analysis also established correction values for converting questionnaire item scores between Chinese and English questionnaires. Moreover, we also found systematic differences in English questionnaire scores between the bilingual sample and a previously collected mixed-international English-speaking sample. We hope this and the Chinese questionnaire translation will motivate researchers to study human-ASA interaction among a Chinese literate population and to study cultural similarities and differences in this area.