Recently, gender-ambiguous (nonbinary) voices have been added to voice assistants to combat gender stereotypes and foster inclusion. However, if people react negatively to such voices, these laudable efforts may be counterproductive. In five preregistered studies (N = 3,684 adult participants) we found that people do react negatively, rating products described by narrators with gender-ambiguous voices less favorably than when they are described by clearly male or female narrators. The voices create a feeling of unease, or social disfluency, that affects evaluations of the products being described. These effects are best explained by low familiarity with voices that sound ambiguous. Thus, initial negative reactions can be overcome with more exposure.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2008). Easy on the mind, easy on the wallet: The roles of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 985–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.985
2.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
BernsteinM. J.YoungS. G.HugenbergK. (2007). The cross-category effect: Mere social categorization is sufficient to elicit an own-group bias in face recognition. Psychological Science, 18(8), 706–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01964.x
5.
BirtelM. D.CrispR. J. (2012). “Treating” prejudice: An exposure-therapy approach to reducing negative reactions toward stigmatized groups. Psychological Science, 23(11), 1379–1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443838
CarteiV.OakhillJ.GarnhamA.BanerjeeR.RebyD. (2020). “This is what a mechanic sounds like”: Children’s vocal control reveals implicit occupational stereotypes. Psychological Science, 31(8), 957–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620929297
8.
DielA.LewisM. (2022). The deviation-from-familiarity effect: Expertise increases uncanniness of deviating exemplars. PLOS ONE, 17(9), Article e0273861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273861
9.
EberhardtJ. L.DasguptaN.BanaszynskiT. L. (2003). Believing is seeing: The effects of racial labels and implicit beliefs on face perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250215
HuartJ.CorneilleO.BecquartE. (2005). Face-based categorization, context-based categorization, and distortions in the recollection of gender ambiguous faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(6), 598–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.10.007
12.
HugenbergK.BodenhausenG. V. (2004). Ambiguity in social categorization: The role of prejudice and facial affect in race categorization. Psychological Science, 15(5), 342–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00680.x
13.
IyerE. S.DebevecK. (1986). Gender stereotyping of products: Are products like people? In Proceedings of the 1986 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference 2014 (pp. 40–45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11101-8_9
14.
JohnsonK. L.LickD. J.CarpinellaC. M. (2015). Emergent research in social vision: An integrated approach to the determinants and consequences of social categorization. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12147
15.
KoS. J.JuddC. M.BlairI. V. (2006). What the voice reveals: Within-and between-category stereotyping on the basis of voice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 806–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206286627
16.
Lev-AriS.KeysarB. (2010). Why don’t we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1093–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025
17.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2013). Fluency of visual processing explains prejudiced evaluations following categorization of concealable identities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.001
18.
LickD. J.JohnsonK. L. (2015). The interpersonal consequences of processing ease: Fluency as a metacognitive foundation for prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414558116
19.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000086
20.
MullennixJ. W.JohnsonK. A.Topcu-DurgunM.FarnsworthL. M. (1995). The perceptual representation of voice gender. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98(6), 3080–3095. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.413832
21.
NassC.BraveS. (2005). Wired for speech. MIT Press.
22.
NassC.MoonY.GreenN. (1997). Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 864–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00275.x
23.
NewmanE. J.SchwarzN. (2018). Good sound, good research: How audio quality influences perceptions of the research and researcher. Science Communication, 40(2), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018759345
24.
OleszkiewiczA.PisanskiK.Lachowicz-TabaczekK.SorokowskaA. (2017). Voice-based assessments of trustworthiness, competence, and warmth in blind and sighted adults. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24(3), 856–862. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1146-y
25.
OwenH. E.HalberstadtJ.CarrE. W.WinkielmanP. (2016). Johnny Depp, reconsidered: How category-relative processing fluency determines the appeal of gender ambiguity. PLOS ONE, 11(2), Article e0146328. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146328
26.
PeracchioL. A.TyboutA. M. (1996). The moderating role of prior knowledge in schema-based product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1086/209476
27.
PernetC. R.BelinP. (2012). The role of pitch and timbre in voice gender categorization. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00023
28.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
29.
ReberR.WinkielmanP.SchwarzN. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00008
30.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
31.
SchroederJ.EpleyN. (2015). The sound of intellect: Speech reveals a thoughtful mind, increasing a job candidate’s appeal. Psychological Science, 26(6), 877–891. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615572906
32.
SchroederJ.EpleyN. (2016). Mistaking minds and machines: How speech affects dehumanization and anthropomorphism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1427–1437. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000214
33.
SchwarzK.FontanariA. M. V.CostaA. B.SollB. M. B.da SilvaD. C.de Sá Villas-BôasA. P.CieloC. A.BastilhaG. R.RibeiroV. V.DorfmanM. E. K. Y.LobatoM. I. R. (2018). Perceptual-auditory and acoustical analysis of the voices of transgender women. Journal of Voice, 32(5), 602–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.07.003
34.
SongH.SchwarzN. (2009). If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20(2), 135–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02267.x
35.
SutherlandC. A.YoungA. W.MootzC. A.OldmeadowJ. A. (2015). Face gender and stereotypicality influence facial trait evaluation: Counter-stereotypical female faces are negatively evaluated. British Journal of Psychology, 106(2), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12085
36.
WestM.KrautR.ChewH. E. (2019). I’d blush if I could: Closing gender divides in digital skills through education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367416
37.
WinkielmanP.OlszanowskiM.GolaM. (2015). Faces in-between: Evaluations reflect the interplay of facial features and task-dependent fluency. Emotion, 15(2), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000036
YamadaY.KawabeT.IhayaK. (2013). Categorization difficulty is associated with negative evaluation in the “uncanny valley” phenomenon: Categorization and evaluation. Japanese Psychological Research, 55(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2012.00538.x
40.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
