Advertisement

Driving with a Speech Interaction System: Effect of Personality on Performance and Attitude of Driver

  • Ing-Marie Jonsson
  • Nils Dahlbäck
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8511)

Abstract

Personality has a huge effect on how we communicate and interact with others. This study is one in a series of three that investigates how a speech based in-car system matched with dominant and submissive drivers affects performance and attitude drivers. The study was conducted with 30 participants at Linköping University in Sweden. Data show that using a voice that combines feature from submissive and dominant speech patterns work well for both dominant and submissive drivers. The voice showed the same performance gain as when matching car voice personality with personality of driver, without the negative attitude ratings associated with the submissive car voice found in previous studies. Drivers assessment of the car system show that even though both dominant and submissive drivers find the system helpful, dominant drivers find the system more annoying and more likely to turn the system off. Design implications of in-vehicle systems are discussed.

Keywords

In-car System Driving Simulator Driving Performance Speech system Attitude Personality Dominant and Submissive 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Banse, R., Scherer, K.R.: Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 614–636 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jonsson, I.-M., Nass, C., Endo, J., Reaves, B., Harris, H., Le Ta, J., Chan, N., Knapp, S.: Don’t blame me I am only the Driver: Impact of Blame Attribution on Attitudes and Attention to Driving Task. In: SIGCHI, pp. 1219–1222. ACM Press (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nass, C., Brave, S.: Wired for speech” how voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zajicek, M., Jonsson, I.-M.: A Complex Relationship, Older People and In-Car Message System Evaluation. Journal of Gerontology 6, 66–78 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jonsson, I.-M.: Conversational Interfaces and Driving: Impact on Behaviour and Attitude. In: IASTED Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 224–229 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonsson, I.-M., Dahlbäck, N.: The effects of different voices for speech-based in-vehicle interfaces: Impact of young and old voices on driving performance and attitude. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH 2009, pp. 2795–2798 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    La, L.: CNET Reviews, iSheep, Fandroids, and why we care so damn much about oru smartphones. Online Magazine (November 2013), http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-6452_7-57612654/isheep-fandroids-and-why-we-care-so-damn-much-about-our-smartphones/
  8. 8.
    Nass, C., Jonsson, I.-M., Harris, H., Reaves, B., Endo, J., Brave, S., Takayama, L.: Improving Automotive Safety by Pairing Driver Emotion and Car Voice Emotion. In: SIGCHI, pp. 1973–1976. ACM Press (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lazarsfeld, P., Merton, R.: Mass Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized Social Action. In: The Communication of Ideas, pp. 95–188 (1948)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Byrne, D.: The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nass, C., Lee, K.M.: Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? An experimental test of similarity-attraction. In: SIGCHI, pp. 329–336. ACM Press (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dahlbäck, N., Swamy, S., Nass, C., Arvidsson, F., Skågeby, J.: Spoken Interaction with Computers in a Native or Non-native Language - Same or Different? In: Proceedings of INTERACT, pp. 294–301 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonsson, I.-M., Dahlbäck, N.: In-Car Information Systems: Matching and Mismatching Personality of Driver with Personality of Car Voice. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCII/HCI 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8005, pp. 586–595. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costa Jr., P.T., McCrae, R.R.: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Winter, J., van Leuween, P., Happee, P.: Advantages and Disadvantages of Driving Simulators: A Discussion. In: Proceedings of Measuring Behavior, pp. 47–50 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brooks, J., Goodenough, R., Crisler, M., Klein, N., Alley, R.: Simulator sickness during driving simulation studies. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, 788–796 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dahlbäck, N., Wang, Q., Nass, C., Alwin, J.: Similarity is More Important than Expertise: Accent Effects in Speech Interfaces. In: SIGCHI, pp. 1553–1556. ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nass, C., Lee, K.: Does Computer synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity attraction and consistency attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 7, 171–181 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rubin, R., Palmgreen, P., Sypher, H.: Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook. Guilford Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ing-Marie Jonsson
    • 1
  • Nils Dahlbäck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations