The Persuasiveness of Synthetic Speech versus Human Speech

Abstract

Is computer-synthesized speech as persuasive as the human voice when presenting an argument? After completing an attitude pretest, 193 participants were randomly assigned to listen to a persuasive appeal under three conditions: a high-quality synthesized speech system (DECtalk Express), a low-quality synthesized speech system (Monologue), and a tape recording of a human voice. Following the appeal, participants completed a posttest attitude survey and a series of questionnaires designed to assess perceptions of speech qualities, perceptions of the speaker, and perceptions of the message. The human voice was generally perceived more favorably than the computer-synthesized voice, and the speaker was perceived more favorably when the voice was a human voice than when it was computer synthesized. There was, however, no evidence that computerized speech, as compared with the human voice, affected persuasion or perceptions of the message. Actual or potential applications of this research include issues that should be considered when designing synthetic speech systems.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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, 5–19.

Engstrom, E. (1994). Effects of nonfluencies on speaker's credibility in newscast settings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 739–743.

Erickson, B. , Lind, E. A. , Johnson, B. C. , & O'Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266–279.

Hovland, C. I. , & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.

Kiesler, S. , Sproull, L. , & Waters, K. (1996). A prisoner's dilemma experiment on cooperation with people and human-like computers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 47–65.

Leathers, D. G. (1997). Successful nonverbal communication: Principles and applications (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Logan, J. S. , & Pisoni, D. B. (1986). Preference judgments comparing different synthetic voices (Research on Speech Perception Progress Report No. 12). Bloomington: Indiana University.

Lucia, V. C. (1998). The effects of speech rate and speaker-listener congruence on persuasion. Unpublished master's thesis, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

McGarry, J. , & Hendrick, C. (1974). Communicator credibility and persuasion. Memory and Cognition, 2, 82–86.

10.

McHugh, A. (1976). Listener preference and comprehension tests of stress algorithms for a text-to-phonetic speech synthesis program (Naval Research Laboratory Report No. 8015). Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.

11.

Mirenda, P. , Eicher, D. , & Beukelman, D. R. (1989). Synthetic and natural speech preferences of male and female listeners in four age groups. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 175–183.

12.

Nass, C. , Moon, Y. , & Green, N. (1997). Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 864-876.

13.

Nusbaum, H. C. , Scwab, E. C. , & Pisoni, D. B. (1984). Subjective evaluation of synthetic speech: Measuring preference, naturalness, and acceptability (Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report No. 10). Bloomington: Indiana University.

14.

Nye, P. W. , Ingemann, F. , & Donald, L. (1975). Synthetic speech comprehension: A comparison of listener performances with and preferences among different speech forms (Status Report on Speech Perception SR-41). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.

15.

Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

16.

Priester, J. R. , & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637–654.

17.

Ralston, J. V. , Pisoni, D. B. , & Mullennix, J. W. (1995). Perception and comprehension of speech. In A. K. Syrdal , R. Bennet , & S. Greenspan (Eds.), Applied speech technology (pp. 233–288. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

18.

Rosselli, F. , Skelly, J. J. , & Mackie, D. M. (1995). Processing rational and emotional messages: The cognitive and affective mediation of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 163–190.

19.

Sadd, S. M. , Welkowitz, J. , & Feldstein, S. (1978). Judgments of characteristics of speakers in a natural stress situation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 57–64.

20.

Smith, S. M. , & Shaffer, D. R. (1995). Speed of speech and persuasion: Evidence for multiple effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1051–1060.

21.

Stern, S. E. , Brandt, S. , & Hantula, D. A. (1998, April). The effects of disability and assistive technology on performance evaluation. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

22.

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.

23.

Woodall, W. G. , & Burgoon, J. K. (1984). Talking fast and changing attitudes: A critique and clarification. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 127–142