The speaker/gender effect: Does the speaker's gender matter when presenting auditory text in multimedia messages?

Instructional Science

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 503-521

  Linek, Stephanie B ^a   Gerjets, Peter ^b   Scheiter, Katharina ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

^b KNOWLEDGE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Media equation; Multimedia design; Narration; Parasocial interaction; Speaker gender effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955427206     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-009-9115-8     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2004). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 117-139.
2. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
3. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.
4. Crane, M., & Markus, H. (1982). Gender identity: The benefits of a self-schema approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1195-1197.
5. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004a). Intrinsic motivation inventory. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from www. psych. rochester. edu/SDT/measures/intrins_scl. html.
6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004b). Subject impression questionnaire. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from www. psych. rochester. edu/SDT/measures/intrins_scl. html.
7. Forgasz, G. B., Leder, L. E., & Klosterman, P. (2004). New perspectives on the gender stereotyping of mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 389-420.
8. Franzoi, S. L. (1996). Social psychology. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
9. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
10. Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of experimental and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam: North Holland.
12. Hoffmann, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem sex-role inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 39-55.
13. Isbister, K., & Nass, C. (2000). Consistency of personality in interactive characters: Verbal cues, non-verbal cues and user characteristics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 251-267.
14. Lee, E.-J. (2008). Gender stereotyping of computers: Resource depletion or reduced attention? Journal of Communication, 58, 301-320.
15. Markus, H., Crane, M., Bernstein, S., & Siladi, M. (1982). Self-schemas and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 38-50.
16. Markus, H., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Role of the self-concept in the perception of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1494-1512.
17. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18. Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 419-425.
19. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
20. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724-733.
21. Nass, C., & 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.
22. Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are machines gender-neutral? Gender stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 864-876.
23. Payne, T. J., Connor, J. M., & Colletti, G. (1987). Gender-based schematic processing: An empirical investigation and reevaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 937-945.
24. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
25. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.
26. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 9-25.
27. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Vollmann, B. & Catrambone, R. (2009). The impact of learner characteristics on information utilization strategies, cognitive load experienced, and performance in hypermedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 387-401.
28. Schneider-Düker, M., & Kohler, A. (1988). Die Erfassung von Geschlechtsrollen-Ergebnisse zur deutschen Neukonstruktion des Bem Sex-Role-Inventory. Diagnostica, 34, 256-270. (The measurement of sex-roles-Results on the development of a German version of the Bem Sex-Role-Inventory).
29. Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 624-635.
30. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychological Review, 10, 251-296.
31. Vollmeyer, R., Rollett, W., Rheinberg, F. (1997). How motivation affects learning. In M. G. Shafto, & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the nineteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 796-801). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Zahn, C. J., & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument (SEI). Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 113-122.