Speech-based disclosure systems: Effects of modality, gender of prompt, and gender of user

International Journal of Speech Technology

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 113-121

  Nass, Clifford ^a   Robles, Erica ^a   Heenan, Charles ^a   Bienstock, Hilary ^a   Treinen, Marissa ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Disclosure; Modality; Recorded voice; Speech user interface (SUI); Text to speech (TTS); Voice user interface (VUI)

Indexed keywords

SPEECH PROCESSING; TEXT PROCESSING; USER INTERFACES;

SPEECH USER INTERFACE (SUI);

SPEECH;

EID: 0037376648     PISSN: 13812416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1022378312670     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Blau, P. (1986). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Transactions Publishers.
2. Beniger, J. (1986). The Control Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Clark, H.H. (1996). Using Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Nass, C. and Gong, L. (2000). Social aspects of speech interfaces from an evolutionary perspective: Experimental research and design implications. Communications of the ACM, 43: 36-43.
5. Reeves, B. and Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Lee, E.-J. and Nass, C. (2002). An experimental test of normative group influence and representation effects in computer-mediated communication: When interacting via computers differs from interacting with computers. Human Communication Research, 28:349-381.
7. Kamm, C., Walker, M., and Rabiner, L. (1997). The role of speech processing in human-computer intelligent communication. Presented at NSF Workshop on Human-Centered Systems: Information, Interactivity, and Intelligence.
8. Nass, C. and Lee, K.M. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7:171-181.
9. Nass, C., Foehr, U., Brave, S., and Somoza, M. (2001). The effects of emotion of voice in synthesized and recorded speech. Presented at Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium: Emotional and Intelligent II: The Tangled Knot of Social Cognition, North Falmouth, MA.
10. Tannen, D. (1996). Gender and Discourse. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Nass, C., Moon, Y., and Green, N. (1997). Are machines genderneutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27:864-876.
12. Lee, E.-J., Nass, C., and Brave, S. (2000). Can computer-generated speech have gender? An experimental test of gender stereotypes. Presented at CHI 2000. The Hague, The Netherlands.
13. Moon, Y. (1998). Impression management in computer-based interviews: The effects of input modality, output modality, and distance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62:610-622.
14. Kroner, D.G. and Weekes, J.R. (1996). Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21:323-333.
15. Crowne, D. and Marlowe, D. (1964). The Approval Motive. New York: Wiley.
16. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.
17. Gong, L. (2000). Pairing media-captured human versus computer-synthesized humanoid faces and voices for talking heads: A consistency theory for interface agents. Communication. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
18. Lee, K.M. (2002). Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: Creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Presented at International Communication Association, Seoul, Korea.
19. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environment, 1:262-271.
20. Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated-Communication, 3. Available at http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2.
21. Argyle, M. and Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Mazanec, N. and McCall, G.J. (1976). Sex factors and allocation of attention in observing persons. Journal of Psychology, 93: 175-180.
23. Hall, J.A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85:845-857.
24. Hall, J.A. (1984). Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and Expressive Style. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25. Eagly, A. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38:971-981.
26. Massaro, D.W. (1997). Perceiving Talking Faces: From Speech Perception to a Behavioral Principle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., and Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Panayiotou, G. (1999). Effects of self-focus and evaluation anxiety on task performance. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
29. Rickenberg, R. and Reeves, B. (2000). The effects of animated characters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of user interfaces. Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI'00 Conference Proceedings. New York: ACM Press, pp. 49-56.
30. Oviatt, S., DeAngeli, A., and Kuhn, K. (1997). Integration and synchronization of input modes during multimodal human-computer interaction. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'97). New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 415-422.
31. Oviatt, S. (1999). Ten myths of multimodal interaction. Communications of the ACM, 42:74-81.