Advertisement

International Journal of Speech Technology

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 113–121 | Cite as

Speech-Based Disclosure Systems: Effects of Modality, Gender of Prompt, and Gender of User

  • Clifford Nass
  • Erica Robles
  • Charles Heenan
  • Hilary Bienstock
  • Marissa Treinen
Article

Abstract

Disclosure of personal information is valuable to individuals, governments, and corporations. This experiment explores the role interface design plays in maximizing disclosure. Participants (N = 100) were asked to disclose personal information to a telephone-based speech user interface (SUI) in a 3 (recorded speech vs. synthesized speech vs. text-based interface) by 2 (gender of participant) by 2 (gender of voice) between-participants experiment (with no voice manipulation in the text conditions). Synthetic speech participants exhibited significantly less disclosure and less comfort with the system than text-based or recorded-speech participants. Females were more sensitive to differences between synthetic and recorded speech. There were significant interactions between modality and gender of speech, while there were no gender identification effects. Implications for the design of speech-based information-gathering systems are outlined.

disclosure speech user interface (SUI) voice user interface (VUI) text-to-speech (TTS) recorded voice modality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blau, P. (1986). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Transactions Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Beniger, J. (1986). The Control Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, H.H. (1996). Using Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Nass, C. and Gong, L. (2000). Social aspects of speech interfaces from an evolutionary perspective: Experimental research and design implications. Communications of the ACM, 43: 36-43.Google Scholar
  5. Reeves, B. and Nass, C. (1996).The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Lee, E.-J. and Nass, C. (2002). An experimental test of normative group influence and representation effects in computermediated communication: When interacting via computers differs from interacting with computers. Human Communication Research, 28:349-381.Google Scholar
  7. Kamm, C., Walker, M., and Rabiner, L. (1997). The role of speech processing in human-computer intelligent communication. Presented at NSF Workshop on Human-Centered Systems: Information, Interactivity, and Intelligence.Google Scholar
  8. Nass, C. and 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.Google Scholar
  9. Nass, C., Foehr, U., Brave, S., and Somoza, M. (2001). The effects of emotion of voice in synthesized and recorded speech. Presented at Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium: Emotional and Intelligent II: The Tangled Knot of Social Cognition, North Falmouth, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Tannen, D. (1996). Gender and Discourse. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Nass, C., Moon, Y., and Green, N. (1997). Are machines genderneutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27:864-876.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, E.-J., Nass, C., and Brave, S. (2000). Can computer-generated speech have gender? An experimental test of gender stereotypes. Presented at CHI 2000. The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Moon, Y. (1998). Impression management in computer-based interviews: The effects of input modality, output modality, and distance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62:610-622.Google Scholar
  14. Kroner, D.G. and Weekes, J.R. (1996). Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21:323-333.Google Scholar
  15. Crowne, D. and Marlowe, D. (1964). The Approval Motive. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
  17. Gong, L. (2000). Pairing media-captured human versus computersynthesized humanoid faces and voices for talking heads: A consistency theory for interface agents. Communication. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, K.M. (2002). Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: Creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Presented at International Communication Association, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  19. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environment, 1:262-271.Google Scholar
  20. Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated-Communication, 3. Available at <http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2>.Google Scholar
  21. Argyle, M. and Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and Mutual Gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mazanec, N. and McCall, G.J. (1976). Sex factors and allocation of attention in observing persons. Journal of Psychology, 93:175-180.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, J.A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85:845-857.Google Scholar
  24. Hall, J.A. (1984). Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and Expressive Style. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Eagly,A. (1983). Gender and social influence:Asocial psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38:971-981.Google Scholar
  26. Massaro, D.W. (1997). Perceiving Talking Faces: From Speech Perception to a Behavioral Principle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., and Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Panayiotou, G. (1999).Effects of self-focus and evaluation anxiety on task performance. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.Google Scholar
  29. Rickenberg, R. and Reeves, B. (2000). The effects of animated characters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of user interfaces. Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI'00 Conference Proceedings. New York: ACM Press, pp. 49-56.Google Scholar
  30. Oviatt, S., DeAngeli, A., and Kuhn, K. (1997). Integration and synchronization of input modes during multimodal human-computer interaction. Proceedings of Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems (CHI'97). New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 415-422.Google Scholar
  31. Oviatt, S. (1999). Ten myths of multimodal interaction. Communications of the ACM 42:74-81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clifford Nass
    • 1
  • Erica Robles
    • 1
  • Charles Heenan
    • 1
  • Hilary Bienstock
    • 1
  • Marissa Treinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations