Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gendered Voices Effect in Social Drones

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2023, Volume 3 (FTC 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 815))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 220 Accesses

Abstract

This study explored participants’ response to male versus female voices in drone campus tour guides. The sample comprised 60 undergraduate and graduate students, of which 50% were female, from a University in South Korea. A between-subjects experimental design was employed with each drone voice type (male and female) to examine the influence on perceived credibility, attitude, and the sense of presence. The results revealed that neither participants’ perception of credibility nor sense of presence was affected by voice type, but results demonstrated that female participants displayed a stronger positive attitude toward the male-voiced drone. In participants’ gender difference index, female participants felt a stronger perceived presence than did male participants. These findings suggest possible guidelines for designing social drone agents that use speech-enabled technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bonfert, M., Spliethöver, M., Arzaroli, R., Lange, M., Hanci, M., Porzel, R.: If you ask nicely: a digital assistant rebuking impolite voice commands. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pp. 95–102. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3242969.3242995

  2. Ferrell, J.G.: System and method for multimodal interactive speech and language training. (Patent No. 5,885,083). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (1999). https://patents.google.com/patent/US5885083A/en

  3. Guzman, A.L.: Voices in and of the machine: source orientation toward mobile virtual assistants. Comput. Hum. Behav.. Hum. Behav. 90, 343–350 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lubold, N., Walker, E., Pon-Barry, H.: Effects of voice-adaptation and social dialogue on perceptions of a robotic learning companion. In: 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 255–262. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451760

  5. Nass, C., Brave, S.: Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-computer relationship. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eyssel, F., Hegel, F.: (S)he’s got the look: gender stereotyping of robots. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42(9), 2213–2230 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00937.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jung, E.H., Waddell, T.F., Sundar, S.S.: Feminizing robots: user responses to gender cues on robot body and screen. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3107–3113. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892428

  8. Kuchenbrandt, D., Häring, M., Eichberg, J., Eyssel, F., André, E.: Keep an eye on the task! How gender typicality of tasks influence human–robot interactions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(3), 417–427 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0244-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Otterbacher, J., Talias, M.: S/he’s too warm/agentic! The influence of gender on uncanny reactions to robots. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 214–223. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Søraa, R.A.: Mechanical genders: how do humans gender robots? Gend. Technol. Dev.. Technol. Dev. 21(1–2), 99–115 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2017.1385320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tay, B., Jung, Y., Park, T.: When stereotypes meet robots: the double-edge sword of robot gender and personality in human–robot interaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. Hum. Behav. 38, 75–84 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tay, B.T.C., Park, T., Jung, Y., Tan, Y.K., Wong, A.H.Y.: When stereotypes meet robots: the effect of gender stereotypes on people’s acceptance of a security robot. In International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, pp. 261–270. Springer, Berlin (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39360-0_29

  13. Fiske, S.T.: Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G. (eds.) The handbook of social psychology, pp. 357–411. McGraw-Hill (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mason, M.F., Cloutier, J., Macrae, C.N.: On construing others: category and stereotype activation from facial cues. Soc. Cogn.Cogn. 24(5), 540–562 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2006.24.5.540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gong, L.: How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Comput. Hum. Behav.. Hum. Behav. 24(4), 1494–1509 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gong, L., Nass, C.: When a talking-face computer agent is half-human and half-humanoid: human identity and consistency preference. Hum. Commun. Res.Commun. Res. 33(2), 163–193 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00295.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Morkes, J., Kernal, H.K., Nass, C.: Effects of humor in task-oriented human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication: a direct test of SRCT theory. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 14(4), 395–435 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1404_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cauchard, J.R., E, J.L., Zhai, K.Y., Landay, J.A.: Drone & me: an exploration into natural human-drone interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 361–365. ACM (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2805823

  19. Duncan, B.A., Murphy, R.R.: Comfortable approach distance with small unmanned aerial vehicles. In: IEEE RO-MAN, pp. 786–792. IEEE (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2013.6628409

  20. Kim, B., Kim, H.Y., Kim, J.: Getting home safely with drone. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct, pp. 117–120. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2968219.2971426

  21. Tan, H., Lee, J., Gao, G.: Human-drone interaction: drone delivery & services for social events. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 183–187. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3197391.3205433

  22. Allegra, D., Alessandro, F., Santoro, C., Stanco, F.: Experiences in using the Pepper robotic platform for museum assistance applications. In 25th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp. 1033–1037. IEEE (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2018.8451777

  23. Fukuda, H., Kobayashi, Y., Kuno, Y., Yamazaki, A., Ikeda, K., Yamazaki, K.: Analysis of multi-party human interaction towards a robot mediator. In: 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 17–21. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745085

  24. Pan, Y., Okada, H., Uchiyama, T., Suzuki, K.: On the reaction to robot’s speech in a hotel public space. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(5), 911–920 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0320-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Thrun, S., et al.: MINERVA: a second-generation museum tour-guide robot. In: Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 99CH36288C), vol. 3, IEEE (1999). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1999.770401

  26. Beck, H., et al.: Autonomous takeoff and landing of a quadcopter. In: International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp. 475–484. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUAS.2016.7502614

  27. Fernández, R.A.S., Sanchez-Lopez, J.L., Sampedro, C., Bavle, H., Molina, M., Campoy, P.: Natural user interfaces for human-drone multi-modal interaction. In: International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp. 1013–1022. IEEE (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUAS.2016.7502665

  28. Griffin, E.: A First Look at Communication Theory (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Huang, Z., Benyoucef, M.: Usability and credibility of e-government websites. Gov. Inf. Q. 31(4), 584–595 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Landay, J.A., Cauchard, J.R.: Drone & wo: cultural influences on human-drone interaction techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 6794–6799. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Liu, Z.: Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web. Inf. Process. Manage. 40(6), 1027–1038 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(03)00064-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cyr, D., Head, M., Ivanov, A.: Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty: development of a model for cognitive–affective user responses. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. Comput. Stud. 67(10), 850–869 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lü, L., Zhou, T.: Link prediction in complex networks: a survey. Physica A A 390(6), 1150–1170 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2010.11.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Andrist, S., Ziadee, M., Boukaram, H., Mutlu, B., Sakr, M.: Effects of culture on the credibility of robot speech: a comparison between English and Arabic. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 157–164. ACM (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696464

  35. Algharabat, R., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Alalwan, A.A., Qasem, Z.: The effect of telepresence, social presence and involvement on consumer brand engagement: an empirical study of non-profit organizations. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. Consum. Serv. 40, 139–149 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Choi, J.J., Kwak, S.S.: Effect of synchronized remote sender’s and robot’s motion cues on presence in telerobotics. Proc. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett. 129, 170–175 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gao, W., Li, X.: Building presence in an online shopping website: the role of website quality. Behav. Inf. Technol. 38(1), 28–41 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1509127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rose, T.: Effect of immersion on task performance and cardiac response in a virtual reality assembly training simulation [Unpublished master’s thesis]. North Carolina State University (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Draper, J.V., Kaber, D.B., Usher, J.M.: Telepresence. Hum. Factors 40(3), 354–375 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779591386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Minsky, M.: Telepresence. Omni, pp. 45–51 (1980). https://philpapers.org/rec/MINT

  41. Nass, C., Steuer, J.: Voices, boxes, and sources of messages: computers and social actors. Hum. Commun. Res.Commun. Res. 19(4), 504–527 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00311.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Heeter, C.: Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence Teleoperators Virt. Environ. 1(2), 262–271 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.2.262

  43. Steuer, J.: Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. In: Biocca, F., Levy, M. (eds.), Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality. Lawrence Erlbaum (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Biocca, F., Harms, C., Burgoon, J.K.: Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence Teleoperators Virt. Environ. 12(5), 456–480 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270

  45. Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virt. Environ. 7(3), 225–240 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686

  46. Grudin, J., Pruitt, J.: Personas, participatory design and product development: an infrastructure for engagement. In: PDC 02 Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, pp. 144–161. ACM Press (2002). https://www.ece.uvic.ca/~aalbu/CENG%20412%202009/scenarios%20and%20personas.pdf

  47. Macrae, C.N., Bodenhausen, G.V., Milne, A.B., Jetten, J.: Out of mind but back in sight: stereotypes on the rebound. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67(5), 808–817 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Cooper, A.: The inmates are running the asylum. Sams (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kiesler, S., Goetz, J.: Mental models of robotic assistants. In: CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 576–577. ACM (2002). https://doi.org/10.1145/506443.506491

  50. Powers, A., Kiesler, S.: The advisor robot: tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 218–225. ACM (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1121241.1121280

  51. Fawkes, J.: Performance and persona: goffman and jung’s approaches to professional identity applied to public relations. Public Relat. Rev. 41(5), 675–680 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lee, S., Ratan, R., Park, T.: The voice makes the car: enhancing autonomous vehicle perceptions and adoption intention through voice agent gender and style. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 3(1), 20 (2019). https://www.mdpi.com/2414-4088/3/1/20

  53. Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J.: Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109(3), 573–598 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Furumo, K.A., Pearson, J.M.: Gender-based communication styles, trust, and satisfaction in virtual teams. J. Inf. Inf. Technol. Organ. 2 (2007). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Gender-Based-Communication-Styles%2C-Trust%2C-and-in-Furumo-Pearson/b5ca2e80a9b3daa974b8a2985655ed92c25e16b1?p2df

  55. McGinn, C., Torre, I.: Can you tell the robot by the voice? An exploratory study on the role of voice in the perception of robots. In: 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 211–221. IEEE (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673305

  56. Zhang, W., Smith, M.L., Smith, L.N., Farooq, A.: Gender and gaze gesture recognition for human-computer interaction. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 149, 32–50 (2016). https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/924791/gender-and-gaze-gesture-recognition-for-human-computer-interaction

  57. Burnett, M., Peters, A., Hill, C., Elarief, N.: Finding gender-inclusiveness software issues with GenderMag: a field investigation. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2586–2598. ACM (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858274

  58. Hallström, J., Elvstrand, H., Hellberg, K.: Gender and technology in free play in Swedish early childhood education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 25(2), 137–149 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9274-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jernigan, W., et al.: General principles for a generalized Idea Garden. J. Vis. Lang. Comput.Comput. 39, 51–65 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2017.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Meyers-Levy, J., Loken, B.: Revisiting gender differences: what we know and what lies ahead. J. Consum. Psychol. Consum. Psychol. 25(1), 129–149 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Riedl, R., Hubert, M., Kenning, P.: Are there neural gender differences in online trust? An fMRI study on the perceived trustworthiness of eBay offers. MIS Q. 34(2), 397–428 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Enoch, Y., Soker, Z.: Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: University students’ use of web-based instruction. Open Learn. J. Open Dist. E-Learn. 21(2), 99–110 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510600713045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Koohang, A.: Students’ perceptions toward the use of the digital library in weekly web-based distance learning assignments portion of a hybrid programme. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 35(5), 617–626 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00418.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., Suzuki, T.: Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI & Soc. 20(2), 138–150 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Siegel, M., Breazeal, C., Norton, M.I.: Persuasive robotics: the influence of robot gender on human behavior. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2563–2568. IEEE (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2009.5354116

  66. Thellman, S., et al.: He is not more persuasive than her: No gender biases toward robots giving speeches. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp. 327–328. ACM (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3267851.3267862

  67. Meier, S.T., Lambert, M.E.: Psychometric properties and correlates of three computer aversion scales. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 23(1), 9–15 (1991). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Iachini, T., Coello, Y., Frassinetti, F., Senese, V.P., Galante, F., Ruggiero, G.: Peripersonal and interpersonal space in virtual and real environments: effects of gender and age. J. Environ. Psychol. 45, 154–164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Taffou, M., Viaud-Delmon, I.: Cynophobic fear adaptively extends peri-personal space. Front. Psych. 5, 122 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Iachini, T., Ruggiero, G., Ruotolo, F., Vinciguerra, M.: Motor resources in peripersonal space are intrinsic to spatial encoding: evidence from motor interference. Acta Physiol (Oxf.) Physiol. (Oxf.) 153, 20–27 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Quesque, F., Ruggiero, G., Mouta, S., Santos, J., Iachini, T., Coello, Y.: Keeping you at arm’s length: modifying peripersonal space influences interpersonal distance. Psychol. Res. 81(4), 709–720 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0782-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Gould, J.D., Conti, J., Hovanyecz, T.: Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter. Commun. ACM. ACM 26(4), 295–308 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1145/2163.358100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nowak, K.L., Rauh, C.: The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun.Commun. 11(1), 153–178 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00308.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. McCroskey, J.C., Holdridge, W., Toomb, J.K.: An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. Speech Teacher 23(1), 26–33 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1080/03634527409378053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. McCroskey, J.C., Young, T.J.: Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech J. 32(1), 24–34 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1080/10510978109368075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Ajzen, I.: Attitude structure and behavior relations. In: Partkanis, A.R., Berckler, S.T., Greenwald, A.G. (eds.) Attitude structure and function, pp. 241–274. Earlbaum (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice Hall, Hoboken (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 38(3), 475–487 (1993). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020737383710229

  79. Lombard, M., Ditton, T.: Presence measures [Unpublished manuscript]. Temple University (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Sundar, S.S.: Exploring receivers’ criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism Mass Commun. Q. 76(2), 373–386 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909907600213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Vettehen, P.H., Nuijten, K., Peeters, A.: Explaining effects of sensationalism on liking of television news stories: the role of emotional arousal. Commun. Res.. Res. 35(3), 319–338 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208315960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Prior, M.: Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Polit. Commun.Commun. 20(2), 149–171 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Lee, E. J., Nass, C., Brave, S.: Can computer-generated speech have gender?: An experimental test of gender stereotype. In: CHI 2000 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 289–290. ACM (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/633292.633461

  84. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Green, N.: Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27(10), 864–876 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00275.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Brann, M., Himes, K.L.: Perceived credibility of male versus female television newscasters. Commun. Res. Rep.. Res. Rep. 27(3), 243–252 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/08824091003737869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Q. 21(4), 389–400 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2307/249720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Lee, K.M.: Presence, explicated. Commun. Theory. Theory. 14(1), 27–50 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Nah, F.F.H., Eschenbrenner, B.: Understanding gender differences in media perceptions of hedonic systems: a comparison of 2D versus 3D Media. J. Database Manage. 27(3), 23–37 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4018/JDM.2016070102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Lombard, M., Ditton, T.: At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 3(2), JCMC321 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

  90. Slater, M.D., Henry, K.L., Swaim, R.C., Anderson, L.L.: Violent media content and aggressiveness in adolescents: a downward spiral model. Commun. Res.. Res. 30(6), 713–736 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203258281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Mullins, L.J., Hicks, L.: The process of perception. In: Mullins, L.J. (ed.), Management and organizational behaviour (5th ed.), pp. 376–448. Financial Times/Pitman Publishing (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  92. Buchanan, D., Huczynski, A.: Organizational behavior: An introductory text (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall, Hoboken (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  93. Syvertsen, T., Enli, G., Mjøs, O. J., Moe, H.: The Media Welfare State: Nordic Media in the Digital Era. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sungkyunkwan University, 25-2 Sungkyunkwan-ro, Jongno-gu, South Korea

    Hwa-Yeon Kong

Authors
  1. Hwa-Yeon Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hwa-Yeon Kong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science and Engineering, Saga University, Saga, Japan

    Kohei Arai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kong, HY. (2023). Gendered Voices Effect in Social Drones. In: Arai, K. (eds) Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2023, Volume 3. FTC 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 815. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47457-6_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation