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.
Table 5
| Construct/dimension | M | Δ | CI | Max{P(Δ > 0), P(Δ < 0)} | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese | English | M | SD | 2.5% | 97.5% | ||
| Agent's believability | |||||||
| HLA | −0.70 | −0.75 | −0.03 | 0.13 | −0.28 | 0.22 | 0.59 |
| HLB | 0.01 | 0.04 | −0.08 | 0.14 | −0.35 | 0.19 | 0.72 |
| NA | −0.22 | −0.24 | −0.04 | 0.12 | −0.28 | 0.19 | 0.64 |
| NB | −0.19 | −0.29 | 0.03 | 0.13 | −0.22 | 0.28 | 0.60 |
| AAS | 0.98 | 1.35 | −0.37 | 0.12 | −0.60 | −0.15 | >0.99 |
| AU | 1.04 | 1.23 | −0.17 | 0.11 | −0.38 | 0.05 | 0.94 |
| PF | 1.07 | 1.31 | −0.24 | 0.11 | −0.45 | −0.03 | 0.99 |
| AL | 0.61 | 0.77 | −0.18 | 0.12 | −0.42 | 0.06 | 0.93 |
| AS | 0.60 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.52 | 0.98 |
| APP | 0.21 | 0.20 | −0.01 | 0.13 | −0.26 | 0.23 | 0.54 |
| UAA | 1.06 | 1.31 | −0.26 | 0.11 | −0.47 | −0.05 | 0.99 |
| AE | 0.95 | 1.25 | −0.32 | 0.11 | −0.53 | −0.10 | >0.99 |
| UE | 1.59 | 1.81 | −0.23 | 0.10 | −0.42 | −0.03 | 0.99 |
| UT | 0.35 | 0.43 | −0.05 | 0.11 | −0.27 | 0.16 | 0.69 |
| UAL | 0.64 | 0.51 | 0.12 | 0.11 | −0.09 | 0.33 | 0.87 |
| AA | 1.51 | 1.65 | −0.15 | 0.11 | −0.37 | 0.06 | 0.92 |
| AC | 1.39 | 1.55 | −0.13 | 0.10 | −0.33 | 0.07 | 0.90 |
| AI | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.02 | 0.12 | −0.21 | 0.25 | 0.57 |
| AT | 1.15 | 1.43 | −0.25 | 0.11 | −0.47 | −0.03 | 0.99 |
| SP | −0.11 | −0.16 | 0.01 | 0.14 | −0.26 | 0.28 | 0.52 |
| IIS | 0.45 | 0.65 | −0.19 | 0.11 | −0.40 | 0.02 | 0.96 |
| Emotional experience | |||||||
| AEI | −0.42 | −0.67 | 0.17 | 0.14 | −0.11 | 0.44 | 0.88 |
| UEP | 0.81 | 0.62 | 0.13 | 0.11 | −0.09 | 0.35 | 0.87 |
| UAI | 1.05 | 0.79 | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.44 | 0.98 |
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.
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
Artificial Social Agent, questionnaire, translation, validation, evaluation instrument, culture
Citation
Li F, Fitrianie S, Bruijnes M, Abdulrahman A, Guo F and Brinkman W-P (2024) Corrigendum: Mandarin Chinese translation of the Artificial-Social-Agent questionnaire instrument for evaluating human-agent interaction. Front. Comput. Sci. 6:1421070. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2024.1421070
Received
21 April 2024
Accepted
29 April 2024
Published
13 May 2024
Volume
6 - 2024
Edited and reviewed by
Minela Kerla, Consultant, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Updates
Copyright
© 2024 Li, Fitrianie, Bruijnes, Abdulrahman, Guo and Brinkman.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Willem-Paul Brinkman w.p.brinkman@tudelft.nl
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.