[en] In general, speech-disabled users of synthetic speech are viewed favorably compared to nondisabled users. The authors examined whether situational variables can affect this favorable view. Participants watched an actor deliver a persuasive appeal under conditions where speech (human vs. synthetic), disability status (unspecified vs. disabled), and situation (unspecified vs. telephone campaign) were varied. Perceptions of argument, message, voice, and speaker were assessed. Overall, synthetic speech was disliked but tolerated more when used by a disabled person. The authors also found that positive prejudice toward disabled speakers persisted when they were engaged in a negatively perceived activity. However, if the disabled speaker used synthetic speech for the negative activity, he or she was viewed negatively compared to a disabled speaker using human speech. Overall, the use of synthetic speech by the disabled does not necessarily damage people's perceptions of them. However, people may express some prejudice when a negative context creates enough ambiguity.
Disciplines :
Theoretical & cognitive psychology
Author, co-author :
Stern, Steven; University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown > Division of Natural Sciences
Anderson, R.J., & Antonak, R.F. (1992). The influence of attitudes and contact on reactions to persons with physical and speech disabilities. Rehabilitation and Counseling Bulletin, 35, 240-247.
Baker, S.M., & Petty, R.E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (1). 5-19.
Carver, C.S., Glass, D.C., & Katz, I. (1978). Favorable evaluations of Blacks and the handicapped: Positive prejudice, unconscious denial, or social desirability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 97-106.
Crandall, C.S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414-446.
Elliot, T., & Frank, R. (1990). Social and interpersonal reactions to depression and disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 35, 135-147.
Esposito, B., & Reed, T. (1986). The effects of contact with handicapped persons on young children's attitudes. Exceptional Children, 53 (3). 224-229.
Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (1977). The subtlety of White racism, arousal, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (10). 691-707.
Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In S. L. Gaertner & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gething, L. (1992). Judgments of health professionals of personal characteristics of people with a visible physical disability. Social Science and Medicine, 34 (7). 809-815.
Harber, K. (1998). Feedback to minorities: Evidence of a positive bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (3). 622-628.
Hebl, M., & Kleck, R.E. (2000). The social consequences of physical disability. In R. E. Kleck, T. F. Heatherton, J. Hull, & M. Hebl (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 419-440). New York: Guilford.
Hebl, M., Tickle, J., & Heatherton, T. (2000). Awkward moments in interactions between nonstigmatized and stigmatized individuals. In R. E. Kleck, T. F. Heatherton, J. Hull, & M. Hebl (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 273-306). New York: Guilford.
Houston, V., & Bull, R. (1994). Do people avoid sitting next to someone who is facially disfigured? European Journal of Social Psychology, 24 (2). 279-284.
King, E.B., Shapiro, J.R., Hebl, M.R., Singletary, S.L., & Turner, S. (2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3). 579-593.
Lucia, V.C. (1998). The e fects of speech rate and speaker-listener congruence on persuasion. Unpublished master's thesis, Wayne State University, Detroit.
MacDonald, A., & Hall, J. (1969). Perception of disability by the nondisabled. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33 (6). 654-660.
Makas, E. (1988). Positive attitudes toward disabled people: Disabled and nondisabled persons' perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 44 (1). 49-62.
Monin, B., & Miller, D.T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (1). 33-43.
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.
Navarre, K.A., & Minton, H.L. (1977). Internal-external control and attitude toward disability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45 (5). 961-962.
Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S. (2003). Human-computer interaction: Psychological aspects of the human use of computing. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 491-516.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pledger, C. (2003). Discourse on disability and rehabilitation issues: Opportunities for psychology. American Psychologist, 58 (4). 279-284.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2 nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seelman, K.D. (1993). Assistive technology policy: A road to independence for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (2). 115-136.
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 (12). 2297-2306.
Stern, S.E., Mullennix, J.W., Dyson, C., & Wilson, S.J. (1999). The persuasiveness of synthetic speech versus human speech. Human Factors, 41 (4). 588-595.
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 (2). 411-417.
Syrdal, A.K. (1995). Text-to-speech systems. In A. K. Syrdal, R. Bennet, & S. Greenspan (Eds.), Applied speech technology (pp. 99-126). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Tate, D.G., & Pledger, C. (2003). An integrative conceptual framework of disability. American Psychologist, 58 (4). 289-295.
Wegener, D.T., & Petty, R.E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141-208). New York: Academic Press.
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.
Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C.M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and colorblind perspectives of judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4). 635-654.
