Gender stereotyping of computers: Resource depletion or reduced attention?

Journal of Communication

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 301-320

  Lee, Eun Ju ^a,b  

^a Seoul National University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; STEREOTYPIC BEHAVIOR;

TRIVIA;

EID: 47949122926     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00386.x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2003). Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1-15.
2. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.
3. Bigot, L. L., Jamet, E., Rouet, J.-F., & Amiel, V. (2006). Mode and modal transfer effects on performance and discourse organization with an information retrieval dialogue system in natural language. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 467-500.
4. Burgoon, J. K., Berger, C. R., & Waldron, V. R. (2000). Mindfulness and interpersonal communication. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 105-127.
5. Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundberg, M., & Allspach, L. (2000). Interactivity in human-computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 553-574.
6. Burgoon, M., & Klingle, R. S. (1998). Gender differences in being influential and/or influenced: A challenge to prior explanations. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 257-285). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725-741.
8. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241-265.
9. Chanowitz, B., & Langer, E. (1981). Premature cognitive commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1051-1063.
10. Dolinski, D., Ciszek, M., Godlewski, K., & Zawadzki, M. (2002). Fear-then-relief, mindlessness, and cognitive deficits. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 435-447.
11. Eakins, B. W., & Eakins, R. G. (1978). Sex differences in human communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Fogg, B. J., & Nass, C. (1997). Silicon sycophants: The effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46, 551-561.
13. Foos, P. W., & Goolkasian, P. (2005). Presentation format effects in working memory: The role of attention. Memory and Cognition, 33, 499-513.
14. Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517.
15. Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733-740.
16. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women's place. New York: Harper & Row.
17. Langer, E. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 137-173). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. Langer, E. (1992). Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 1, 289-305.
19. Langer, E. (1994). The illusion of calculated decisions. In R. C. Schank & E. J. Langer (Eds.), Beliefs, reasoning, and decision making: Psych-logic in honor of Bob Abelson (pp. 33-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Langer, E., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of "placebic"information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635-642.
21. Langer, E., & Imber, L. (1979). When practice makes imperfect: The debilitating effects of overlearning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2014-2025.
22. Langer, E., & Weinman, C. (1981). When thinking disrupts intellectual performance: Mindfulness on an overlearned task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 240-243.
23. Lee, E.-J. (2003). Effects of "gender"of the computer on informational social influence: The moderating role of task type. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 347-362.
24. Lee, E.-J., & Nass, C. (2002). Experimental tests of normative group influence and representation effects in computer-mediated communication: When interacting via computers differs from interaction with computers. Human Communication Research, 28, 349-381.
25. McAllister, D., Mitchell, T., & Beach, L. (1979). The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance, accountability, and reversibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 228-244.
26. Morishima, Y., Nass, C., Bennett, C., & Lee, K. M. (2001). Effects of "gender"of computer-generated speech on credibility. Technical Report of IEICE TL2001-16, 31, 557-562.
27. Motley, M. T. (1992). Mindfulness in solving communicators' dilemmas. Communication Monographs, 59, 306-314.
28. Mulac, A. (1998). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and sex in interaction (pp. 127-153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Nass, C., & Lee, K. M. (2001). Does computer-generated speech manifest personality?: Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 171-181.
31. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103.
32. Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Carney, P. (1999). Are respondents polite to computers? Social desirability and direct responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1093-1110.
33. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., Reeves, B., & Dryer, D. C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 223-239.
34. Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are computers gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 864-876.
35. Pollock, C. L., Smith, S. D., Knowles, E. S., & Bruce, H. J. (1998). Mindfulness limits compliance with the that's-not-all technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1153-1157.
36. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Sex, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637-655.
38. Smither, J. (1993). Short term memory demands in processing synthetic speech by old and young adults. Behavior and Information Technology, 12, 330-335.
39. Sundar, S. S., & Nass, C. (2000). Source orientation in human-computer interaction: Programmer, networker, or independent social actor? Communication Research, 27, 683-703.
40. Tetlock, P. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
41. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
42. Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 345-368.