Instructional Science

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 503–521 | Cite as

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

  • Stephanie B. Linek
  • Peter Gerjets
  • Katharina Scheiter


Current cognitive multimedia design theories provide several guidelines on how to integrate verbal and pictorial information. However, the recommendations for the design of auditory texts (narrations) are still fragmentary, especially with regard to the characteristics of the voices used. In the current paper, a fundamental question is addressed, namely, whether to use a male or a female speaker. In two experiments, learners studied dynamic visualizations on probability theory that were accompanied by narrations. The learner’s gender and the speaker’s gender served as between-subjects variables. In the first study, learners were randomly assigned to speakers of different gender. In the second study, learners could choose among different speakers. The results show that learners achieved better learning outcomes when the narration was presented by a female speaker rather than a male speaker irrespective of the learner’s gender (speaker/gender effect). Being given the choice, learners preferred female speakers, but this individual preference had no impact on learning outcomes. The results suggest augmenting purely cognitive approaches to multimedia design by social-motivational assumptions.


Speaker/gender effect Multimedia design Narration Parasocial interaction Media equation 


  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crane, M., & Markus, H. (1982). Gender identity: The benefits of a self-schema approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1195–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004a). Intrinsic motivation inventory. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from
  6. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004b). Subject impression questionnaire. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franzoi, S. L. (1996). Social psychology. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  10. Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, E.-J. (2008). Gender stereotyping of computers: Resource depletion or reduced attention? Journal of Communication, 58, 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Markus, H., Crane, M., Bernstein, S., & Siladi, M. (1982). Self-schemas and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  32. Zahn, C. J., & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument (SEI). Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie B. Linek
    • 1
  • Peter Gerjets
    • 2
  • Katharina Scheiter
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Knowledge Media Research Center TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.University of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations