Social perception of male and female computer synthesized speech

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 407-424

  Mullennix, John W ^a   Stern, Steven E ^a   Wilson, Stephen J ^c   Dyson, Corrie Lynn ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Gender; Persuasion; Social influence; Synthetic speech; Text to speech (TTS)

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SYSTEMS; EDUCATION; STUDENTS;

SPEECH QUALITY;

SPEECH SYNTHESIS;

EID: 0037411002     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00081-X     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Baker S.M., Petty R.E. Majority and minority influence. source position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67:1994;5-19.
2. Burgoon M. Approaching speech/communication. 1974;Holt, Newhart, & Winston, New York.
3. Burgoon M., Klingle R.S. Gender differences in being influential and/or influenced. a challenge to prior explanations Canary D.J., Dindia K. Sex differences and similarities in communication. 1998;257-285 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
4. Carli L.L. Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59:1990;941-951.
5. Carli L.L., LaFleur S.J., Loeber C.C. Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68:1995;1030-1041.
6. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed:1988;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
7. Eagly A.H. Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin. 85:1978;86-116.
8. Eagly A.H. Gender and social influence. a social psychological analysis American Psychologist. 38:1983;971-981.
9. Karlsson I. Female voices in speech synthesis. Journal of Phonetics. 19:1991;111-120.
10. Klatt D.H., Klatt L.C. Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 87:1990;820-857.
11. Leathers D.G. Successful nonverbal communication: principles and applications. 3rd ed:1997;Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
12. Logan, J. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1986). Preference judgements comparing different synthetic voices. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report No. 12. (pp. 263-290). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
13. Lucia, V. C. (1998). The effects of speech rate and speaker-listener congruence on persuasion. Unpublished master's thesis, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
14. McHugh, A. (1976). Listener preference and comprehension tests of stress algorithms for a text-to-phonetic speech synthesis program. Naval Research Laboratory Report 8015.
15. Mirenda P., Eicher D., Beukelman D.R. Synthetic and natural speech preferences of male and female listeners in four age groups. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 32:1989;175-183.
16. Nass C., Moon Y., Green N. Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 27:1997;864-876.
17. Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., & Schwab, E. C. (1984). Subjective evaluation of synthetic speech: measuring preference, naturalness, and acceptability. Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report No. 10 (pp. 391-408). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
18. Nye, P. W., Ingemann, F., & Donald, L. (1975). Synthetic speech comprehension: a comparison of listener performances with and preferences among different speech forms. Status Report on Speech Perception SR-41. Haskins Laboratories.
19. Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. Communication and persuasion. 1986;Springer Verlag, New York.
20. Reeves B., Nass C. The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. 1996;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
21. Rosenthal R., Rosnow R.L. Contrast analysis: focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. 1985;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
22. Rosenthal R., Rosnow R.L. Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. 2nd ed:1991;McGraw-Hill, New York.
23. Rosselli F., Skelly J.J., Mackie D.M. Processing rational and emotional messages. the cognitive and affective mediation of persuasion Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 31:1995;163-190.
24. Stern S.E., Mullennix J.W., Dyson C., Wilson S.J. The persuasiveness of synthetic speech versus human speech. Human Factors. 41:1999;588-595.
25. Stern S.E., Mullennix J.W., Wilson S.J. Effects of perceived disability on persuasiveness of computer synthesized speech. Journal of Applied Psychology. 87:2002;411-417.