This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Stern, S. E. Articles by Winters, M. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Positive Prejudice Toward Disabled Persons Using Synthesized Speech

Does the Effect Persist Across Contexts?

University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown, sstern{at}pitt.edu or mullenni{at}pitt.edu.

Muriel Dumont

Catholic University of Louvain and University of Liège, Belgium

John W. Mullennix

University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown

M. Lynn Winters

Pennsylvania Highlands Community College, Ebensburg

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.

Key Words: augmentative communication • synthetic speech • prejudice • speech disability

References

• 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Crandall, C.S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414-446.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Elliot, T., & Frank, R. (1990). Social and interpersonal reactions to depression and disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 35, 135-147.[Web of Science]
• Esposito, B., & Reed, T. (1986). The effects of contact with handicapped persons on young children's attitudes. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 224-229.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• 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.[CrossRef]
• Harber, K. (1998). Feedback to minorities: Evidence of a positive bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 622-628.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Leathers, D.G. (1997). Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Makas, E. (1988). Positive attitudes toward disabled people: Disabled and nondisabled persons' perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 49-62.[Web of Science]
• Monin, B., & Miller, D.T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 33-43.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 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.[CrossRef]
• Navarre, K.A., & Minton, H.L. (1977). Internal-external control and attitude toward disability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(5), 961-962.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 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.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd 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.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 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.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 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.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 4, 363-380 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X07307008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. E. Stern Computer-Synthesized Speech and Perceptions of the Social Influence of Disabled Users Journal of Language and Social Psychology, September 1, 2008; 27(3): 254 - 265. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Stern, S. E. Articles by Winters, M. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?