Computer-synthesized speech and perceptions of the social influence of disabled users

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 254-265

  Stern, Steven E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Augmentative and alternative communication; Computer synthesized speech; Disability; Prejudice; Text to speech; Trustworthiness

Indexed keywords

EID: 48849108750     PISSN: 0261927X     EISSN: 15526526     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X08318035     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Allport, G.W. (1958). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
2. Bradac, J.J. (1998, November). It's all in your head. ICA Newsletter, 4-5.
3. Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387-1397.
4. Cook, T.E., & Flay, B.R. (1978). The persistence of experimentally induced attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 2-59). New York: Academic Press.
5. Crandall, C.S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414-446.
6. Dabbs, J.M., Jr., & Janis, I.L. (1965). Why does eating while reading facilitate opinion change? An experimental inquiry. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 133-144.
7. Drager, K.D.R., Justad, K.C., & Gable, K.L. (2004). Telephone communication: Synthetic and dysarthric speech intelligibility and listener preferences. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 103-112.
8. Drager, K.D.R., & Reichle, J.E. (2001). Effects of age and divided attention on listeners' comprehension of synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 109-119.
9. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage.
10. Engstrom, E. (1994). Effects of nonfluencies on speaker's credibility in newscast settings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 739-743.
11. Erikson, B., Lind, E.A., Johnson, B.C., & O' Barr, W.M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of powerful and powerless speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
12. Florman, S.C. (1981). Blaming technology: The irrational search for scapegoats. New York: St. Martin's Press.
13. Gilbert, D.T., & Hixon, J.G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517.
14. Hebl, M., & Kleck, R.E. (2000). The social consequences of physical disability. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, J. G. Hull, & M. R. Hebl (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 88-125). New York: Guilford.
15. Janis, I., & Feshbach, S. (1953). Affects of fear arousing communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78-92.
16. Koul, R. (2003). Synthetic speech perception in individuals with and without disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 49-58.
17. Logan, J.S., Greene, B.G., & Pisoni, D.B. (1989). Segmental intelligibility of synthetic speech produced by rule. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 86, 566-581.
18. Mesthene, E.G. (1970). Technological change: It's impact on man and society. New York: Mentor Books.
19. Mullennix, J.W., & Stern, S.E. (in press). Computer mediated speech technology: Perceptions of speech, and attitudes toward disabled users. In S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer mediated communication. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
20. Mullennix, J.W., Stern, S.E., Wilson, S.J., & Dyson, C. (2003). Social perception of male and female computer synthesized speech. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 407-424.
21. Mumford, L. (1963). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
22. Murphy, J. (2004). " I prefer contact this close": Perceptions of AAC by people with motor neurone disease and their communication partners. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 259-271.
23. Neuberg, S.L., Smith, D.M., & Asher, T. (2000). Why people stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, J. G. Hull, & M. R. Hebl (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31-61). New York: Guilford.
24. Norman, D.A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
25. Nusbaum, H.C., Francis, A.L., & Henly, A.S. (1995). Measuring the naturalness of synthetic speech. International Journal of Speech Technology, 1, 7-19.
26. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer Verlag.
27. Ralston, J.V., Pisoni, D.B., & Mullennix, J.W. (1995). Perception and comprehension of speech. In A. Syrdal, R. Bennett, & S. Greenspan (Eds.), Applied speech technology (pp. 233-287). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
28. Ryan, E.B. (2006). Finding a new voice: Writing through health adversity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 423-436.
29. Sadd, S.M., Welkowitz, J., & Feldstein, S. (1978). Judgments of characteristics of speakers in a natural stress situation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 57-64.
30. Smith, S.M., & Shaffer, D.R. (1995). Speed of speech and persuasion: Evidence for multiple effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1051-1060.
31. Snyder, M.L., Kleck, R.E., Strenta, A., & Mentzer, S.J. (1979). Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2297-2306.
32. Stern, S.E., Dumont, M., Mullennix, J.W., & Winters, M.L. (2007). Positive prejudice towards disabled persons using synthesized speech: Does the effect persist across contexts ? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 363-380.
33. Stern, S.E., Mullennix, J.W., Dyson, C., & Wilson, S.J. (1999). The persuasiveness of synthetic speech versus human speech. Human Factors, 41, 588-595.
34. Stern, S.E., Mullennix, J.W., & Wilson, S.J. (2002). Effects of perceived disability on persuasiveness of computer-synthesized speech. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 411-417.
35. Stevens, C., Lees, N., Vonwiller, J., & Burnham, D. (2005). On-line experimental methods to evaluate text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis: Effects of voice gender and signal quality on intelligibility, naturalness and preference. Computer Speech and Language, 19, 129-146.
36. Venkatagiri, H.S. (2004). Segmental intelligibility of three text-to-speech synthesis methods in reverberant environments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 150-163.
37. Wegner, D.M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34-52.
38. Weitzel, A. (2000). Overcoming loss of voice. In D. O. Braithwaite & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application (pp. 451-466). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Werner, C.M., Stoll, R., Birch, P., & White, P.H. (2002). Clinical validation and cognitive elaboration: Signs that encourage sustained recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 185-203.
40. Woodall, W.G., & Burgoon, J.K. (1984). Talking fast and changing attitudes: A critique and clarification. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 127-142.