The quality of daily spontaneous conversations is of importance towards both our well-being as well as the development of interactive social agents. Prior research directly studying the quality of social conversations has operationalized it in narrow terms, associating greater quality to less small talk. Other works taking a broader perspective of interaction experience have indirectly studied quality through one of the several overlapping constructs such as rapport or engagement, in isolation. In this work we bridge this gap by proposing a holistic conceptualization of conversation quality, building upon the collaborative attributes of cooperative conversation floors. Taking a multilevel perspective of conversation, we develop and validate two instruments for perceived conversation quality (PCQ) at the individual and group levels. Specifically, we motivate capturing external raters' gestalt impressions of participant experiences from thin slices of behavior, and collect annotations of PCQ on the publicly available MatchNMingle dataset of in-the-wild mingling conversations. Finally, we present an analysis of behavioral features that are predictive of PCQ. We find that for the conversations in MatchNMingle, raters tend to associate smaller group sizes, equitable speaking turns with fewer interruptions, and time taken for synchronous bodily coordination with higher PCQ.@en

Social interactions in general are multifaceted and there exists a wide set of factors and events that influence them. In this paper, we quantify social interactions with a holistic viewpoint on individual experiences, particularly focusing on non-task-directed spontaneous interactions. To achieve this, we design a novel perceived measure, the perceived Conversation Quality, which intends to quantify spontaneous interactions by accounting for several socio-dimensional aspects of individual experiences. To further quantitatively study spontaneous interactions, we devise a questionnaire which measures the perceived Conversation Quality, at both the individual- and at the group- level. Using the questionnaire, we collected perceived annotations for conversation quality in a publicly available dataset using naive annotators. The results of the analysis performed on the distribution and the inter-annotator agreeability shows that naive annotators tend to agree less in cases of low conversation quality samples, especially while annotating for group-level conversation quality.

@en