Recent work has looked to understand user perceptions of speech agent capabilities as dialogue partners (termed partner models), and how this affects user interaction. Yet, partner model effects are currently inferred from language production as no metrics are available to quantify these subjective perceptions more directly. Through three phases of work, we develop and validate the Partner Modelling Questionnaire (PMQ): an 18-item self-report semantic differential scale designed to reliably measure people’s partner models of non-embodied speech interfaces. Through confirmatory factor analysis, we confirm that the PMQ scale consists of three factors: communicative competence and dependability, human-likeness in communication and communicative flexibility. Our studies show that the measure consistently demonstrates good internal reliability, strong test-retest reliability over 4- and 12-week intervals, and predictable convergent/divergent validity. Based on our findings, we discuss the multidimensional nature of partner models, while identifying key future research avenues that the development of the PMQ facilitates. Notably, this includes the need to identify the activation, sensitivity, and dynamism of partner models in speech interface interaction.

Casual conversation, where people engage in social talk or phatic communion (Coupland et al., 1992) (i.e., non-task oriented talk) is acknowledged as important in facilitating collaboration among c...

Humanness is core to speech interface design. Yet little is known about how users conceptualise perceptions of humanness and how people define their interaction with speech interfaces through this. To map these perceptions n=21 participants held dialogues with a human and two speech interface based intelligent personal assistants, and then reflected and compared their experiences using the repertory grid technique. Analysis of the constructs show that perceptions of humanness are multidimensional, focusing on eight key themes: partner knowledge set, interpersonal connection, linguistic content, partner performance and capabilities, conversational interaction, partner identity and role, vocal qualities and behavioral affordances. Through these themes, it is clear that users define the capabilities of speech interfaces differently to humans, seeing them as more formal, fact based, impersonal and less authentic. Based on the findings, we discuss how the themes help to scaffold, categorise and target research and design efforts, considering the appropriateness of emulating humanness.