Enabling the widespread utilization of the Artificial-Social-Agent (ASA) Questionnaire, a research instrument to comprehensively assess diverse ASA qualities while ensuring comparability, necessitates translations beyond the original English source language questionnaire. We thus present Dutch and German translations of the long and short versions of the ASA Questionnaire and describe the translation challenges we encountered. Summative assessments with 240 English-Dutch and 240 English-German bilingual participants show, on average, excellent correlations (Dutch ICC M = 0.82, SD = 0.07, range [0.58, 0.93]; German ICC M = 0.81, SD = 0.09, range [0.58, 0.94]) with the original long version on the construct and dimension level. Results for the short version show, on average, good correlations (Dutch ICC M = 0.65, SD = 0.12, range [0.39, 0.82]; German ICC M = 0.67, SD = 0.14, range [0.30, 0.91]). We hope these validated translations allow the Dutch and German-speaking populations to evaluate ASAs in their own language.

Humans interact with various Artificial Social Agents (ASAs) on a daily basis. ASAs range from the Honda robot ASIMO to Apple’s Siri. To measure the perception of human-ASA interactions, a standardized questionnaire was created. Yet, this questionnaire was so far only available in English and Chinese. It has been found that culture can affect how these interactions are perceived. The aim of this study is to answer the question: What are the differences and similarities of the English and German human-ASA interaction interpretations? In this paper, we translate the questionnaire into German, validate it. Once proven valid, we give the English and German questionnaire on bilingual participants who watch a human-ASA interaction video and rate it in both languages. We measure the differences and similarities between the English and German responses. At the end, we combine the finding from the questionnaire results with examples from literature to form recommendations for future ASA developments. We conclude that an average good level of correlation between the two languages for the 90 questionnaire items (ICC M = 0.65, SD = 0.14, range [0.27, 0.90]), on the construct level (ICC M = 0.8, SD = 0.1, range [0.51, 0.92]), and for the 24 representative items (M = 0.67, SD = 0.14, range[0.31, 0.90]). Additionally, we found systematic differences between the English questionnaire scores of the bilingual sample seen in this study and a previously established mixed-English sample.